Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely: —

Rhondda Passenger Transport Bill [Lords.]

Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Leeds Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Colne Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EXCHEQUER GRANTS.

Commander COCHRANE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to give local authorities in Scotland estimates of the amounts of Exchequer grants which will be payable to them under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, during the second fixed grant period?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Provisional figures were intimated to local authorities-on the 6th instant.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (VACANCY).

Lord SCONE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the vacancy on the technical staff of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, caused by the death of Mr. Mather in August, 1931, has not yet been filled; and whether he will consider the advisability of immediately filling the vacancy?

Sir G. COLLINS: The post of Chief Technical Officer in the Land Division of the Department has remained vacant Since August, 1931, on account of the overriding necessity for economy in administrative expenditure. The matter will be reviewed in the autumn of this year.

Lord SCONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the progress of land settlement is being delayed by lack of a head of the technical staff?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have made inquiries and have satisfied myself that no aspect of the Board's work has suffered through the lack of this appointment.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Surely my right hon. Friend cannot say that a Department of this kind can go for 18 months without a head, and no harm is being done to the work that it is proposed to do?

Sir G. COLLINS: During the 18 months referred to the activities of the Land Settlement Department have not been so great as in former years.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there-are far too many officials in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir.

Sir M. WOOD: Is it not the policy of the Government to push forward land settlement?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, but the sum available was reduced in August, 1931.

PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGOVERN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the case of Helen Miller, who was charged before Sheriff Berry at Justiciary Buildings, Glasgow, on Tuesday, 9th May, with concealment of pregnancy and sentenced to six months' imprisonment; and if, in view of the fact that she was 10 weeks in prison awaiting trial and the suffering she has undergone, he will inquire into the case with a view to remission of the sentence?

Sir G. COLLINS: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case. I have made inquiry, and am informed that an application has been lodged under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926, for leave to appeal against the sentence. The case is, therefore, still sub judice. I am informed that the Crown will take steps to expedite the hEarlng of the appeal.

Mr. McGOVERN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman, pending the appeal, as an act of clemency, release this girl and also give an undertaking to order an inquiry why it was not discovered, although she was a month in hospital, that she was eight months pregnant?

Sir G. COLLINS: I can make no comment on the case at the moment, but the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that it is open to the appellant to apply for liberation on bail pending appeal.

Mr. McGOVERN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman release her on his own initiative?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no such power. The matter is coming before the Criminal Court of Appeal for their consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Lord Advocate with a view to making bail as easy as possible? The girl it sure to appear, and that is what the Crown authorities are after.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Crown can take steps to expedite the hEarlng of the appeal, but the question of bail is outside my power.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman ask the Lord Advocate in the meantime to expedite the hEarlng of an application for bail, and place it at the lowest possible amount?

Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot interfere in a matter of justice.

COCHNO ESTATE, CLYDEBANK (SALE).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the communication sent to him from the Clydebank Town Council relative to the sale of the Cochno estate; whether he has inquired into the matters raised; and whether he will state what action he intends to take?

Sir G. COLLINS: The communication to which the hon. Member refers is receiving consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say what action may be taken.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be as quick as he possibly can, because this is arousing tremendous anxiety in Clydebank?

Sir G. COLLINS: We never lose any time in the Scottish Office in taking action.

REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH (CLERK'S PENSION).

Mr. GUY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the case of Mr. O. G. Cromb, a retired special clerk formerly employed at the Register House, Edinburgh, who completed 43 years' service, of which only 13 years have been counted for his pension?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have given this case careful consideration in consultation with the Treasury, with full regard to the representations made by the Special Clerks' Association and by my hon. Friend. The proposal recently made to the Special Clerks' Association under which previous service from 1st October, 1918, may be allowed to count for pension is in accord with the most favourable practice adopted in similar oases in which categories of staff were made pensionable after the War, and I am satisfied that no further concession is possible.

Mr. GUY: Is the decision in this case not at variance with the general practice recognised by the Royal Commission to count one-half of the unestablished service for pension?

Sir G. COLLINS: I think not. The case has received specially favourable consideration.

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES.

Mr. GUY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the public health services, as recommended by the Local Government (Scotland) Committee?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend proposes to adopt the recommendation of the Committee on Local Expenditure that he should institute an inquiry into the public health services in Scotland. He hopes to be in a position to announce the personnel and the terms of reference of the proposed committee shortly.

HOUSING, STANDBURN.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the houses in the mining village of Standburn, Stirlingshire, which were condemned by the sanitary inspector for the Stirlingshire County Council and why effect has not been given to the recommendations of the report of the inspector?

Mr. SKELTON: As stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous question on this subject, there are no houses now occupied in the village of Standburn which have been condemned as unfit for human habitation. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I visited this village myself and that the whole village is condemned by everyone who has any touch of humanity about him? Will the Scottish Office not inquire into the awful housing conditions prevailing there?

Mr. SKELTON: Owing to representations being made to me, an inspector is going to be sent there, but I repeat, whatever the hon. Gentleman's views were, the question referred to condemnation by the sanitary inspector, and that question is answered in the negative.

HERRING INDUSTRY (GERMAN TRADE AGREEMENT).

Sir M. WOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the agreement which has been entered into with Germany regarding fish, any provision has been made for a reduction of the duty on cured herrings entering Germany?

Sir G. COLLINS: The agreement with Germany, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries referred in the Debate last Wednesday, is not a comprehensive agreement on fish, but as he indicated, is concerned only with the application to Germany of the Government's proposals for the regulation of foreign supplies as part of the scheme for improving the home market. In this agreement it was not possible to deal with the question of the German duty on British cured herrings, but the Government is fully alive to the importance of that question and will lose no opportunity, in negotiations with Germany and other importing countries, of facilitating the trade in cured herrings.

Sir M. WOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the summer fishing is about to commence and the herring trade want to know what prospect there is of the duty, which has been trebled, being reduced? Can he hold out any hope that this year there will be any reduction?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am well aware of the time of fishing in the North Sea, but I am unable to go any further than the terms of my answer.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it was not possible to include herrings in this agreement. Can he tell us whether an attempt was made to include herring or not?

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Lord SCONE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Section 30 of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme empowers the board to exempt such producers as the board thinks fit from the provisions of the scheme; and whether he is satisfied that this unconditional power of exemption will not prejudice the success of the scheme?

Sir G. COLLINS: The provision in Section 30 of the scheme empowers the
board to exempt producers and sales of such classes or descriptions as they may determine. This power is authorised by Section 6 (1) (b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and I am satisfied that it will not prejudice the success of the scheme.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (INTEREST).

Lord SCONE: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that 5 per cent. is the present rate fixed by the Treasury for interest payable on mortgages by owners of agricultural land for advances made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923; and whether, as commissioners' rates in Scotland over such security are now only 4 per cent., he will lower the rate of interest under the said Act to 4 per cent. in order to help farmers?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Captain Todd) on 17th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PITS CLOSED.

Mr. WHYTE: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal pits shut down during the last 12 months and the number of miners thereby thrown out of employment?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): During the 12 months ended 30th April, 1933, 237 pits in Great Britain, employing 23,000 wage-earners, have been closed and not reopened. Of these 117 were small pits employing 10 men each or less and in the aggregate only 466 men.

Mr. WHYTE: Will the Government consider introducing legislation abolishing the quota system, thereby stimulating British coal exports and giving more, employment to our miners?

Mr. BROWN: The supplementary question does not really arise out of the answer. The hon. Member seems to assume that these pits have closed down for that reason. The assumption is quite unfounded.

Mr. TOM SMITH: Is it, not a fact that bad trade is the main cause of these pits being closed?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot discuss all the causes at Question Time.

COAL MINES ACT.

Miss WARD: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any communication from the Central Council with regard to the amendment of Part I of the Coal Mines Act?

Mr. ROBINSON: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will inform the House of the decision arrived at by the Central Council under the coal marketing scheme in regard to the operation of inland and export quotas and the co-ordination of minimum prices; and whether he is prepared to make a statement as to the legislation which will be proposed to the House to give effect to these decisions?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have been informed in writing by the Central Council that at its meeting on the 10th May it was decided to make representations to the Board of Trade with a view to the making of Orders for the purpose of enabling amendments to be made to the Central Scheme to provide for the separation of quotas as between the inland and export trade and inter-district co-ordination of minimum prices. I must defer any statement as to legislation until I have seen the exact form of the representations, which I expect to have shortly.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can my hon. Friend say whether one or both of these recommendations had the necessary 85 per cent. Majority?

Mr. BROWN: The representations are being made as the result of decisions taken by the owners as a whole.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Is the Minister also in communication with the Miners' Federation with regard to amendments of Part I of the Act?

Mr. BROWN: At the moment the question refers to the powers of initiation which lie in the Act itself and are the result of the Act.

Mr. HALL: That is not a reply to the question which I put.

Mr. BROWN: Surely, that is the answer, because the Act itself provides that the initiative shall lie with the coal-owners who are the body under the Act.

Mr. HALL: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in communication with the Miners' Federation on the matter?

Mr. BROWN: At the moment, no. The Council of Coalowners are charged with the working of the Act, and suggested amendments have been discussed for 14 months, and these two amendments are to be the subject of representation.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not a fact that Part I of the Act is working detrimentally to the coal industry; will the Minister take into consideration the recommendation of the Central Council; and when will he be able to introduce legislation to meet the position?

Mr. DICKIE: Will the Government and the Minister in these negotiations keep in view the vital necessity of giving complete freedom of action to the export section of the industry?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that we shall take all facts into consideration.

Mr. SMITHERS: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will call a conference of coalowners in order to discuss with them what amendments are necessary to remedy the defects in the working of the Coal Mines Act which have emerged after three years' experience of the Act?

Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir. The Central Council set up under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, is fully representative of all coalowners, and the power of initiating amendments rests with them.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask the Secretary for Mines whether it is a fact that certain quotas allocated by the Central Council are not being used but held up and not made available to the collieries which could and would use them; and is not this a restraint upon legitimate trade?

Mr. BROWN: The supplementary question does not arise out of the question, and I could not debate all the defects or certain defects of the Act at Question Time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Arising out of the answer which is to the effect that only mineowners can negotiate, cannot the Minister in pursuance of his duties see that the Miners' Federation which represents the men, who are the human lives in the industry, should have some say in any amendments connected with the Act?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member may be quite sure that before amendments are made the interests of the men will be fully considered, as they always are.

Mr. SMITHERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not continue this question any further.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Mr. TINKER: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to state the result of inquiries made by his Department in respect of boys under the age of 16 working below ground in mines on the night shift, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.; and will he now amend the Coal Mines Act to place them in the same position as the boys who work on the surface about coal mines, who are prohibited from working at the times stated, between 9 at night and 5 the next morning?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have been in communication both with the Mining Association and with the Miners' Federation on this subject, but I have not yet been able to secure all the information required. In any case, I am afraid I can hold out no hope of amending legislation at present.

Mr. TINKER: If the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association agreed to the boys underground being put in the same position as those on the surface, would the Secretary for Mines amend the Act?

Mr. BROWN: I must wait until I get the information required.

OVERTIME.

Mr. TINKER: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines if His Majesty's inspectors of coal mines make a return to his Department of the overtime worked in the mines; and, if so, will he state the amount of overtime worked in Lancashire during 1932, in Nottingham for the same period, and the average for Great Britain?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is, no. I regret that I am not in possession of the information asked for in the second part of the question.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Member aware that, if the overtime was looked into, it would help to put back into employment many of those who are now out of work?

Mr. BROWN: I should not accept the assumption underlying the supplementary question.

EMPLOYMENT (WEST AND SOUTH YORKSHIRE).

Mr. T. SMITH: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in the mining industry of west and south Yorkshire, respectively, at the present time; and the number employed at the end of April, 1926, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL EEPORT.

Following is the reply:

The figures are as follow:


Year.
Number of wage-earners on Colliery Books at end of April.


West Yorkshire.
South Yorkshire


1926
65,700
123,100


1929
53,000
117,700


1930
53,300
116,800


1931
50,300
112,900


1932
49,700
105,700


1933
45,200
100,300

EXPORTS (HUMBER PORTS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount of coal exported from the Humber ports, respectively, and its destination during the six months ended 30th April, 1933, and for the same period in 1930, 1931 and 1932?

Mr. E. BROWN: Particulars in respect of April, 1933, will not be available until next week, when I will send to the hon. Member a statement giving the desired information.

WAGE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has recently been in consultation with the coalowners' association with regard to wage agreements; and can he make any statement to the House?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) respectively, on the 28th February and the 21st March.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps have been taken by his Department to secure joint discussion of the possibilities of July with a view to securing a peaceful and satisfactory agreement?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member must not assume that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister tell us whether, Since the last reply was given, he has been in consultation with the Coalowners' Association?

Mr. BROWN: I have already told the hon. Member that I have nothing to add to the previous answers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he contemplates meeting the Coalowners' Association with a view to securing a peaceful settlement of any outstanding problems there may be?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member may rest assured that I shall take all steps which are necessary to secure a peaceful settlement.

HON. MEMBERS: When?

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Government do not take advantage of the very reasonable attitude of the Miners' Federation?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member may be assured of that.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement of policy upon this matter?

Mr. BROWN: Not yet, Sir.

OUTPUT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines what the output per coal-
face worker shift was in 1921–1925, and for the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. E. BROWN: Information with regard to the average output of coal per manshift worked at the coal face for the year 1921 is not available. For the years 1922–25 the figures are as follow:

Cwts.


1922
46.60


1923
45.14


1924
44.71


1925
45.60

The corresponding figure for the year 1932 was 55.84 cwts.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the acknowledged increase in the output per person per day, does not the Minister think that it is his plain duty to interview the Coalowners' Association, so that they may reach a reasonable settlement of the matter?

Mr. BROWN: The Coalowners' Association on that point are well aware of the views of the Government, which have been put before them, not only by myself, but by other Members of the Government.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the Minister consider, in view of the increase of nearly 20 per cent. in the output, whether some share of the remuneration should not be given to the men?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the Minister say whether the hours worked are the same as in 1921–1925?

Mr. BROWN: The answer to the hon. Member is that there are various differences.

ACCIDENT, STEPPS, LANABKSHIEE.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has yet received the report of the inquiry into the accident at Cardowan Colliery, Stepps, Lanarkshire, in November, 1932?

Mr. E. BROWN: The report by Sir Henry Walker was published last Saturday, and is available at the Vote Office. Cmd. 4309.

SILICOSIS AND ANTHEACOSIS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Sir WILLIAM JENKINS): 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps are being taken to put into operation the report of the
Medical Research Board on silicosis and anthracosis in mines; and if any remedial measures are contemplated at any early date?

Mr. E. BROWN: Research into industrial pulmonary diseases is directed by a committee under the Medical Research Council, and an account of the work is included in the annual reports of the council. No fresh findings as regards mining have as yet been reported by the committee, but in the meantime increased attention is given by His Majesty's Inspectors to secure the effective use of dust preventive measures wherever they are considered to be necessary; and practical work for the improvement of such methods is the constant duty of a special inspector attached to the Mines Department.

Mr. GRENFELL: Have the committee recommended the use of appliances to obviate the breathing of fine stone dust which causes silicosis?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will consult the latest report, Command Paper No. 4248, he will see that there are difficulties.

Mr. GRENFELL (for Sir W. JENKINS): 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what number of people have made claims for compensation in the South Wales mines who are suffering from silicosis and what number from anthracosis; what number have succeeded in their claims; the number refused; and upon what grounds their claims failed, from January, 1928, to the last available date?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I regret I am not in a position to give the information asked for, and I would point out that anthracosis is not a disease for which compensation is provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am advised that it has not yet been established that the condition of the lungs described as anthracosis gives rise to any disabling condition. I may add that the Miners' Federation have made representations to me regarding certain cases in which miners suffering from silicosis have not obtained compensation, and that I am in communication with them in the matter.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anthracosis cases have proceeded as far as the courts and the applicants have failed to satisfy the courts that the disease is one for which compensation should be paid; and has the Home Secretary a record of anthracosis as well as silicosis cases; and will he supply information to show how many cases put forward on these grounds are being turned down?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have already said, anthracosis is not a disease for which compensation is provided. As I am advised, it does not come under the terms that we are discussing. As regards the other matters which I am discussing with the miners' representatives, until I have concluded those discussions, I can say nothing further.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is not this unfortunate fact due to the difficulty of diagnosis, and is it the case that the applicants or the dependants of the person who has died or has been disabled, are handicapped considerably because of the failure of the medical profession and the medical advisers to the Home Office to make a correct diagnosis as between these two kinds of cases?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All these matters are being discussed at the present moment.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Sir W. JENKINS): 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received representations from the coal owners and coal miners from South Wales upon the recommendations of the committee of investigation into the Miners' Welfare Fund upon the question of centralising the fund and eliminating district allocation and control of funds; and whether he will continue the practice hitherto prevailing, which has given satisfaction amongst the mining population of South Wales?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes. With regard to the second part, I have asked the Miners' Welfare Committee for their views on these and other questions arising out of the report of the committee of inquiry and affecting the industry as a whole. When I receive their reply, I shall carefully consider it in con-
junction with the representations I have already received from the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, before arriving at any decisions in the matter.

CANADA (BEITISH IMMIGRANTS).

Mr. MACLAY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that Canada refuses entrance to young men from the United Kingdom whose passages are paid by themselves and for whom provision is made on arrival in Canada; that the British Government permits free entrance of Canadians into the United Kingdom and freedom to take employment of any kind; and whether he will take steps to have this position remedied?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS;(Mr. J. H. Thomas): As regards the first part of the question, if the hon. Member will send me examples of the cases he has in mind, I shall be happy to look into the matter. As regards the second and third parts of the question the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is that no restriction should be placed on the entry of any British subject into this country and, as at present advised, they see no reason for departing from that policy.

Mr. MACLAY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, does he not consider that, from the point of view of our own unemployed, it is rather a one-sided and unfair arrangement whereby men desirous of seeking employment in Canada are refused any opportunity of so doing, whereas the Canadian coming over to this country is able at any time to take employment in this country, which is already overburdened with applications for employment?

Mr. THOMAS: The short problem is this. Should one take responsibility either of advising or encouraging men to leave this country unless there is the prospect of a job for them? I certainly will not take that responsibility, and I certainly cannot encourage people to leave this country when I know that there are so many unemployed in the Dominions.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it by agreement with His Majesty's Government that the
Canadian Government refuse entrance to those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility and the expense of going to Canada? Was this matter discussed in any way at the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. THOMAS: The Canadian Government refuses no entry to Canada to people capable of maintaining themselves, but they refuse to allow entry into Canada to those who are assisted. I have already said that it would be wrong to assist people unless there was a chance of employment.

Mr. LYONS: May I take it that the Government of Canada refuse, or they have the choice of refusing, admission to persons, British subjects, who pay their own passages?

Mr. THOMAS: No, not if it is a question of paying their own passages and being in a position to look after themselves. The same law applies in this country; there is no difference.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the position clear? Can an English citizen enter Canada under exactly the same conditions as Canadian citizens can enter this country?

Mr. THOMAS: As far as entry, yes.

Mr. MAXTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot pursue the matter further now.

TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. FLEMING: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether all claims for compensation by British nationals against Turkey, for British property confiscated by the Turks during the Great War, have been settled?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Claims of this kind were dealt with under the relevant international treaties by two bodies, the Anglo-Turkish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, which met at Constantinople, and the Commission for the Assessment of Damage Suffered in Turkey, which met at Paris. All these claims have been dealt with and the two bodies have been dissolved. Payment has been made in respect of all the awards made by the Paris Commission. Successful British
claimants before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal are taking steps to secure the execution of their judgments in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Turkish Government. I am informed that a certain number of these judgments have been fiNaily executed.

Mr. FLEMING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any such schemes were turned down on the ground that the funds were exhausted?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer without notice being given.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. LYONS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has given to the representations of certain dairy and agricultural engineers with reference to the effect upon that industry of the Danish trading agreement; whether he is aware that on 24th March, 1933, the representatives of the industry were seen by the Import Duty Advisory Committee, to whom an application had been made for a higher duty; and for what reasons, notwithstanding these considerations, the duty was reduced without reference to the trade affected?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the firm to which I understand my hon. Friend refers has approached the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but in regard to the representations of the firm and to the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statements I have already made to the House.

Mr. LYONS: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether it is impossible to reply to the representations that this industry has made to his Department and, further, whether he is aware of the fact that they will be put in great difficulty by the relaxation of a duty about which they were not consulted?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend has any other question to put, I am afraid that I must ask him for notice.

Mr. LYONS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the firm in question have sent the whole of their case to his Department and are awaiting a reply?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will give me a chance of looking into the correspondence which has come into the Department, I can give him an answer, but I cannot tell him whether or not a certain firm has been answered.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. PIKE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the importation of goods from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, prohibited by the Act of 1933, is at present taking place on the grounds that the goods have been paid for in advance; and whether he will compel importers to furnish proof that such payments have been made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Where a licence is granted under Section 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933. for the importation of goods from the Soviet Union on the ground that payment was made before the Proclamation was issued, satisfactory evidence of such payment is obtained before the licence is issued.

Mr. PIKE: What guarantees are demanded from the importer that such payments have been made? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the word of Russia or of the officials of Russia in so far as the importation is concerned is satisfactory proof to his Majesty's Government that payment has been made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. We could not regard that as sufficient evidence that the payments have been made.

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of my supplementary question? What guarantees are accepted from the importer that payment has been made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We require more than guarantees; we want absolute evidence that the payment has been made.

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of that evidence?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large amount of shipbuilding, engineering, and allied contracts carried out in Scotland for Soviet Russia and the number of men so employed, he is prepared to take action to negotiate a new agreement, in view of the number of men
displaced by the cancellation of the agreement and the suspension of trade between Great Britain and Russia?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on the 25th April.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what reply he has given to the employers of labour regarding the heavy engineering that has been held up as a result of the breaking of this agreement, and will he say what action is to be taken?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have made it clear to everybody that the suspension of this traffic is entirely due to the action of the Soviet Government.

Mr. LYONS: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will specify the goods that have been admitted into this country from Russia by licence under Part 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Licences issued under Section 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933, have been in respect of timber, butter and poultry.

URUGUAY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any negotiations are taking place with the Government of Uruguay with a view to a mutual improvement of trade and the relaxation of the existing exchange restrictions in that country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Exchanges of view have taken place which cover both the points which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but no formal trade negotiations are contemplated at present.

TIMBER TRADE.

Mr. LIDDALL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information in regard to the applications made to the Board by the manufacturing section of the home timber trade for adequate protection?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Applications of this kind are for consideration not by my Department but by the Import Duties
Advisory Committee to whom, I understand, various timber trade organisations have made representations.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as far as it is possible for him to do so, urge the Tariff Advisory Committee to decide without further delay, to enable British timber manufacturers to compete with America?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot interfere with the work of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

BRITISH COAL IMPORTS, GERMANY (PAYMENT).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has obtained, in, connection with the recent Anglo-German Trade Agreement, an assurance from the German Government that German importers desirous of importing British coal and coke will be granted facilities by the Reichsbank to obtain the necessary devisen foreign currency to complete the purchases?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I am not aware that coal exporters have had difficulty in obtaining payment from Germany and I do not anticipate that difficulty will arise in the future.

TRADE AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. CONANT: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will undertake, in the negotiation of further trade agreements, to leave unchanged, as far as practicable, those tariffs which have been responsible for the introduction of new industries or processes into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can assure my hon. Friend that full consideration is given to all industries, both new and established, whose position may be affected by commercial negotiations with a foreign country.

Mr. CONANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are large numbers of new industries and new processes which have grown up as a result of tariffs and are now entirely dependent for their existence upon the continuance of some form of reasonable protection?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am well aware of the fact that there have been a number of new processes that have grown up during the last few years under these influences.

Mr. LYONS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what industries are likely to be affected by any of the trade agreements now in contemplation; and whether they or any of them will be consulted before any arrangement is arrived at?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot anticipate the course of the negotiations for any new trade agreements. With regard to the second part of the question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in Debate on the 1st May.

Mr. LYONS: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate the grave lack of confidence and uncertainty that must be created in many trades, seeing that similar industries have been affected without consultation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am prepared to consider any information which is brought to my notice.

Mr. LYONS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the information which I bring to his notice in reference to dairy and agricultural engineers whose trade was affected by an agreement while their case was under consideration by the Tariff Advisory Committee?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that in future any industries granted protection by the Tariff Advisory Committee, the tariff rates of which have been assented to by Parliament, will not be deprived of such protection until the industries themselves have been consulted; and whether he can give an undertaking that duties will not be reduced, in any event, until a definite period of years has elapsed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the question of consultation with particular interests in connection with trade negotiations with foreign countries. On this subject I would invite his attention to the statement I made in Debate on the 1st May. With regard to the second part of the question, it would, I fear, be impossible for the assurance suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend to be given.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that unless
some decision is come to in regard to the future there can be no confidence in industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not detected any lack of confidence. Indeed, there has been nothing but growing confidence during the last two years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to conclude trade agreements with Sweden and Holland; and whether he has in view negotiations with other countries for similar purposes?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A commercial agreement with Sweden was signed yesterday, and the text will, I hope, be available to Members to-morrow. No negotiations are in progress with Holland. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4th May to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).

COTTON EXPORTS (IRAQ).

Sir H. CROFT: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of exports of cotton goods from the United Kingdom to Iraq for the three months prior to the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations and for the last three months for which statistics are available; and whether he can state what were the total imports of cotton goods into Iraq during the same periods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The date of Iraq's entry into the League of Nations was the 3rd October, 1932. The value of the aggregate imports of cotton goods into Iraq during the third and fourth quarters of 1932 amounted to £344,770 and £366,450, respectively, of which imports recorded as consigned from the United Kingdom were valued at £114,907 and £109,658, respectively. Comparable figures for a later period are not yet available.

WEST AFRICAN COLONIES (PALM-OIL TRADE).

Mr. ROBINSON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the threat to the palm-oil and palm-kernel trade of the British West African Colonies arising from the uncontrolled competition of whale oil; and whether it is proposed, in the interests of
the Colonies, to impose an import duty on whale oil entering the United Kingdom?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am informed that there is a close connection between the world prices of all materials from which oil can be produced. As regards the second part of the question, I would explain that whale oil is already subject to duty under the Import Duties Act, 1932; unless it is produced in floating factories which are British concerns or satisfies the conditions of preference.

FABRIC GLOVES.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact; that Command Paper 4303 discloses that Since 5th August the Import Duties Advisory Committee have received further representations from the fabric glove makers and no opportunity for further representations has been afforded to the manufacturers of the cotton yarn, he will delay asking the House to approve the Additional Import Duties (No. 8) Order until equal opportunities have been given to both supporters and opponents of the duty?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no doubt that the yarn manufacturers had full opportunity of placing their case before the committee during the original inquiry, and that the committee in making their second report were satisfied that they were in possession of all the information necessary to enable them to reach a decision. It is not proposed to allow the duty to lapse without affording the House the opportunity of approving the Order of the 28th April.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that the White Paper shows that additional evidence has been received by the supporters of the duty and no opportunity has been given to opponents of the duty to give further evidence, would it not be desirable, in view of the fact that grave injury may be inflicted on one of the most important trades in the country, the fine spinning trade, to hold up this proposal for further consideration?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member inquire at the Board of Trade whether during the five years the higher duty was in operation the spinners suffered any disadvantage whatsoever?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Will the hon. Member inquire whether the fabric glove people also increased their trade during the period of the five years?

WEST AFRICA (ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY).

Captain DOWER: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, are to be taken in the near future that will enable British West African Colonies to grant British cotton goods preferential treatment over Japanese in their markets?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Sierra Leone and the Gambia have for more than a year past granted such preferences. Nigeria and Gold Coast are at present precluded by international instruments from so doing.

Captain DOWER: As Sierra Leone and Gambia are able to grant preferences to British goods would my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of the Government giving notice to terminate the Anglo-Japanese Treaty as far as Nigeria and the Gold Coast are concerned so that these two British Colonies can give preferences to British goods?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is a question on the Paper directed specifically to that matter which will be answered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Mr. CHORITON): 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet able to report any action taken or proposed with regard to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and West Africa?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The requisite notice of 12 months is being given forthwith to terminate the application of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to the British Territories in West Africa.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will this action alone be sufficient, having regard to the terms of the Anglo-French Agreement which prevents the granting of preferences by some British West African Colonies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as West Africa is concerned, it will be sufficient for the moment.

JAMAICA (JAPANESE COTTON IMPORTS).

Mr. REMER: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to the value of the cotton piece goods imported into Jamaica from Japan in the months of January and February of 1930 and in the same months of the present year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No monthly statistics of imports are published by the Government of Jamaica. I will, however, ask the Governor whether he can furnish the information desired.

Mr. REMER: Does the information in my right hon. Friend's possession show a very rapid increase of Japanese imports into Jamaica; and, if so, what action is it proposed to take?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There certainly has been a definite increase. I think the President of the Board of Trade has already stated the general lines on which he is negotiating.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

COASTAL STEAMERS (OIL AND COAL FUEL).

Mr. RANKIN: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state approximately what proportion of British vessels engaged in the coasting trade use oil fuel or coal respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information is not available in respect of vessels employed in the coasting trade, but it is estimated that about 5 per cent. of all British vessels under 1,000 gross registered tonnage use oil fuel.

STEAMSHIP "FIRECREST" (MASTER).

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the master of the steamship "Firecrest" which was concerned in a collision recently, held a certificate of competency?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

OFFICERS (ALIENS).

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider amending the regulations so as to make it obligatory for ships flying the British flag to have British officers on board?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Section 5 (1) of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, provides that no alien shall act as
master, chief officer or chief engineer of a British merchant ship registered in the United Kingdom, except in the case of a ship employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom.

LIFEBOATMEN'S CERTIFICATES.

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL (for Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES): 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certificated captains and navigating officers are now required to submit to examination as lifeboatmen for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act, 1932; and whether, as this practice is resented by the merchant navy as being detrimental to discipline, he will issue regulations to lay down that a certificated deck officer is, ipso facto, qualified as competent to take charge of a boat?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There appears to be a good deal of misapprehension on this subject, and I am glad of the opportunity to make the position clear. The International Safety Convention of 1929, while recognising that a certificated deck officer is competent to take charge of a lifeboat, does not recognise such officers as possessing the qualifications of a certificated lifeboatman, which include training in the actual use of oars; and an officer cannot, therefore, be counted in the quota of certificated lifeboatmen required by the Statutory Life Saving Appliances Rules on all seagoing passenger steamers unless he holds a life-boatman's certificate. The Board of Trade do not consider it desirable as a general rule that officers should be included in the quota as this might interfere with their freedom in an emergency to exercise their proper functions of command and organisation; and as in most ships the number of certificated lifeboatmen carried exceeds the quota, there is no necessity so far as the Board of Trade are concerned for the certificated officers to hold lifeboatmen's certificates.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING).

Mr. WHYTE: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if there has
been any improvement in recruiting for the Territorial Army Since his intimation that summer camps would again be held this year; and will he state how far the figures are now short of establishment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir. The announcement regarding Territorial Army camps was made in January last, and the intake of recruits for the first four months of this year was 14,005 compared with 4,793 for the corresponding period last year. On 1st May, the deficiency in the recruiting establishment of the Territorial Army was 32,402.

MEAT SUPPLIES.

Colonel ROPNER: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is now possible to arrange for only home-produced meat to be supplied to the Army?

Mr. COOPER: Apart from other objections I regret that the cost to Army Votes would be prohibitive.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. TINKER: 44.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases at present that are in receipt of treatment allowances; and will he give the figures for the 12 months ending 1932?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I regret that, without analysis of all the individual accounts, it is not possible to give the precise information asked for by the hon. Member. I may say, however, that at the end of April of this year, apart from those in mental hospitals, there were 3,020 men in hospital receiving medical or surgical treatment from the Ministry and certainly the great Majority of these would be in receipt of treatment allowances. The corresponding figure at the end of December, 1932, was 2,981.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. COCKS: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has been reached regarding the next debt payment to the Government of the United States of America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No statement on this matter can be made at the present time.

Mr. COCKS: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take into consideration the fact that a large body of influential opinion in America believes that the situation will be cleared up if we definitely decide not to pay?

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that England should at all costs honour her bond?

HEAVY OILS TAX.

Mrs. COPELAND: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what bodies representing the glass and pottery industries he has received any representations with reference to the effect of the proposed tax on heavy oils; and what answer he has given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first part of the question, while I have received representations from individuals concerned in the pottery industry I have not received any representations from any organisation on behalf of the industry as a whole. Representations in regard to the glass industry have been received from the Glass Manufacturers' Federation, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and the National Union of Manufacturers. With regard to the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 11th May to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) and others.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

IRISH BUTTER (IMPOST DUTY).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that import duty on butter from the Irish Free State is now being levied on a basic price of 69s. per cwt. although the official quotation for the Free State home market is 133s. per cwt.; and whether, in the interest of the revenue, he will take steps to enable import duty in future to be levied on the latter basis?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The prices quoted appear to be correct, but the
statutory value for the purpose of the charge of duty is the price ruling on the import market in this country and not the market price in the country of origin. Duty could not be levied on the latter basis without an alteration of the law.

FOREIGN MILLED FLOUR (IMPORTS).

Mrs. RUNGE: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the application put forward to the Import Duties Advisory Committee by the National Association of British and Irish Millers for an increased duty on imported foreign milled flour has been under consideration for 12 months and no decision has yet been communicated to those concerned; and whether, in these circumstances, he will suggest to the Advisory Committee the need for more prompt action?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the application of which the Import Duties Advisory Committee gave public notice on the 9th November last. I have no doubt that the Committee have been giving due consideration to this difficult subject and it would not be proper for me to attempt to put pressure upon them.

LAND TRANSFERS.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the information derived from the particulars of the transfers of land obtained under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931, is only used by his Department; and, if not, to what other Departments it is supplied and what are the purposes for which this information is used?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The particulars required to be furnished under the Section referred to by my hon. Friend are designed to afford to the Inland Revenue information as to the current values of land, which is required by the Valuation Office of that Department for various purposes, including valuations for Death Duties and the advising of other Government Departments in regard to the purchase and sale of land for public purposes. The information obtained under the Section is not communicated to other Departments.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the Financial Secretary say where the information was obtained prior to 1931?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It was obviously obtained, but with less efficiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour the general practice pursued by public assistance committees in allowing deductions to be made or otherwise in respect of Income Tax paid on income coming into a home from family contributors?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Comprehensive information is not available, but I have no reason to believe that authorities generally do not have proper regard for statutory outgoings, including Income Tax payments, in deciding how far any earnings coming into the household are available for the support of its unemployed members.

Mr. MANDER: If I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to divergencies of practice in this matter, will he take what steps he can to alter it?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will consider any divergencies of practice to which the hon. Member calls my attention.

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Wolverhampton Borough Council has now decided to publish the means test scale recently adopted after consultation with his Department; whether he will state what other public authorities have published their scales; and whether he will encourage this course?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Information as to the authorities which have given publicity to their public assistance scales is not available. The question of giving such publicity is one entirely within the discretion of the authority concerned, and not one in which it would be proper for me to intervene.

TIN MINERS, CORNWALL.

Lieut-Commander AGNEW: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of tin miners in the county of Cornwall registered as unemployed at the latest
convenient date, and the number at the corresponding date in 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Separate statistics of employment and unemployment in the tin-mining industry are not available. For statistical purposes persons employed in this industry are included in the industrial group "Lead, Tin and Copper Mining," and at 24th April, 1933, there were 1,853 insured persons in this classification recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in the county of Cornwall. The corresponding figure at 25th April, 1932, was 2,231.

WIRELESS LICENCES (FEES).

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will be prepared to sanction the payment of the fee for the wireless licence by quarterly instalments in the case of persons registered as unemployed?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The objection to a general system of payment of wireless licence fees by quarterly instalments is that it would very greatly increase the cost of collection and accounting, which is already heavy. The suggested discrimination in favour of persons registered as unemployed, besides increasing the cost in the cases concerned, would lead to difficulties and anomalies in practice, and could not, I feel sure, be long maintained. My right hon. Friend therefore regrets that he is unable to make the desired concession. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Post Office Savings Bank already affords facilities for accumulating 10s. in small instalments, and that a stamp Deposit Book system has recently been introduced to enable persons of limited means to save by sixpenny instalments.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BRICKS (PRICES).

Mr. SOPER: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increase in the price of bricks; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent it?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend's
attention has been called to some increases in the price of certain sorts. He understands that a recent increase of demand has interfered in places with the ordinary adjustment of supply to demand.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not the policy of the Government to raise the price of everything?

Mr. HICKS: Will inquiries be made as, to the progressive tendency in the price of bricks?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have already made inquiries and are watching the position very closely. At present we are satisfied that the slight hardening is due to economic forces.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it due to the improvement in the building trade?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is certainly one reason.

SLUM CLEAEANCE.

Mr GRAHAM WHITE (for Sir PERCYHARRIS): 60.
asked the Minister of Health how many slum-clearance schemes he has received from local authorities Since the 1st January; how many acres are comprised therein; and what Capttal expenditure is involved?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Resolutions have been received by my Department Since the date in question declaring 211 areas in England and Wales to be clearance areas. No information is available as to the acreage of these areas, but they contain approximately 4,300 houses. My right hon. Friend is at present unable to say what total amount of Capttal expenditure will be involved.

CROWN COLONIES (JUVENILE OFFENDERS).

Mr. LAWSON: 62 and 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has received any further recommendations as to the treatment of juvenile delinquents in Crown Colonies by the advisory committee on whose advice the draft model Children Bill was circulated to Governors of Crown Colonies;
(2) in which Crown Colonies Ordinances have been enacted and put into operation establishing juvenile courts and probation and restrictions on the methods of punishment of children and young persons, in
accordance with the model Children Bill circulated to the Governors of Crown Colonies in 1930; the Crown Colonies in which such Ordinances have been passed but not put into operation; and the Crown Colonies, if any, in which no steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Secretary of State in this respect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The committee to which the hon. Member refers reported to my predecessor in 1930. It is not possible within the limits of a question and answer to indicate the exact extent to which the model draft Ordinance prepared by the committee has been adopted in each Colony, Protectorate and Mandated Territory, as local conditions vary so widely. But I can say generally that steps have been or are being taken to give effect either by legislation or by administrative action to the recommendations made by the committee in so far as local circumstances and the existing financial situation permit.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this matter is receiving sympathetic attention?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Prime Minister tell us what business has been set down for Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am informed that the Ministry of Labour Vote will be put down for Thursday.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can we be informed what section is being taken? It may be hours of labour connected with the Geneva Convention or general administration. I shall be glad if the Prime Minister can inform those of us who are not officially consulted, so that we may know what is being discussed.

The PRIME MINISTER: The information that is handed to me is that it will be the Ministry of Labour Estimates. Therefore many opportunities will be given for raising the whole question of the administration of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. LANSBURY: As this is the first occasion on which the Ministry of Labour
Vote is being taken, will the Minister make a comprehensive statement as to the work of his Department for the year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I am under the disability of the iliness of the Chief Whip, but I understand that that is so.

BILLS REPORTED.

AGRICTTLTUBAL MAEKETING BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Protection of Animals Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. David Adams and Mr. Soper; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lewis Jones and Mr. Tom Smith.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill): Mr. Anstruther Gray, Colonel Baldwin-Webb, Mr. Charles Brown, Earl of Dalkeith, Mr. Mabane, Dr. William McLean, Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Sutcliffe, Mr. Turton, and Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT)BILL.

As amended, further considered.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Possession or ejectment without proof of alternative accommodation.)

3.44 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 1 to 7.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to give serious consideration to this Amendment and to the arguments which I shall venture to address to him and to the House. The House at the beginning of this Schedule will find the words:
Possession or ejectment without proof of alternative accommodation,
and the Schedule opens by saying:
A court shall, for the purposes of Section three of this Act, have power to make or give an order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom without proof of suitable alternative accommodation where the court considers it reasonable so to do.
The Schedule is divided into paragraphs (a) to (h,) and I should like the House to consider what are the circumstances in the different paragraphs which the Bill supposes will be adequate circumstances to justify the court not requiring proof of suitable alternative accommodation. Paragraph (a) says if the rent has not been paid. Paragraph (b) says if a tenant has committed a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers. Paragraph (c) says if the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that the landlord has contracted to sell. Paragraph (d) says if the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the 31st July, 1923, assigned or sublet the whole or part of the dwelling-house. Paragraph (e) says if the dwelling-house contains premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Paragraph (d) is an exception, because last night the Minister accepted an Amendment which inserted a provision that such proof was required in the case of a dwelling-house being so overcrowded as to be dangerous
or injurious to health. I would specialli call the attention of the House to the circumstances envisaged in paragraph (g) — if the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment. In that case, there is no necessity to prove that alternative accommodation is available. Paragraph (h,) the proviso to which I am moving to omit, is that the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord, not for a person in his whole-time occupation, but for himself, or his son or daughter, or his father or mother.
We have, therefore, this state of affairs in this Bill. We have a Schedule which specifically enunciates cases in which the court has not to give consideration to the provision of alternative accommodation in eight different paragraphs applying to eight different cases. In only one of them, namely, where the owner wants to live in his own house or wants possession of it for his son or daughter, or father or mother, has the landlord to show that there is alternative accommodation available for the tenant. It is a strange thing that if a landlord wants possession of his house for a servant, he can get it without proof of alternative accommodation, but if he wants it for himself he cannot do so. I would like to mention two out of an immense number of cases of great hardship of quite poor people who want possession of their houses. The first is the case of a man living in a small street in Barnstaple who, some 10 years ago, inherited an eight-roomed house in a superior part of Barnstaple. The rent of it is 7s. 6d. per week. The tenant has only an aged father-in-law and an epileptic brother and no children. The owner has a wife and three children. He is forced to live, and has been forced to live for 10 years, in a small cottage which does not give adequate accommodation to his children, and an eight-roomed house such as he owns would cost him from 15s. to £1 per week. He contrasts the 7s. 6d. which he gets as rent with the rent charged for council houses of similar accommodation, which is 16s. 4d., with rates in addition.
The other case comes from Exeter. A husband and wife, some six months before the husband was due to leave the Army at the end of the War, bought a house with their savings, at a cost of nearly
£400. The present tenant pays 6s. 6d. a week for this six-roomed house, while the owners of it have to live in two rooms for which they pay 12s. 6d., and their two children have to live out. Similar houses in Exeter to that for which the owner gets 6s. 6d. per week are rented at 18s. to £l. Those cases prove the next thing to which I wish to call attention. In the discussions on this Bill the Minister of Health has made a considerable number of speeches in which he has shown conclusively that the reason for continuing these restrictions on the smaller type of house is that the supply of those houses has not been sufficient to meet the demand. In the cases envisaged in paragraph (A) there is no question of an additional house at all. It is a question of two families each living in a house or a part of a house. The owner wants the one the tenant is in, and whether or not the tenant keeps that one or has some other house there will be exactly as many houses available—neither more nor les3. There is no question of this involving a diminution or an increase in the supply of houses. The whole point is, which of the two people has the right to live in the house, the man who bought it 10 or 15 years ago or the present tenant?
I hold that of all the cases envisaged in the Schedule this is the special case to which the provision as to alternative accommodation should not apply, but, instead, we find it is the one singled out from among all these eight different cases in which alternative accommodation has got to be found. The Schedule begins by saying that it is setting forth the cases in which alternative accommodation is not to be required, but then comes a proviso bringing in again a condition which the court has to take into consideration:
if the court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any alternative accommodation for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order or judgment than by refusing to grant it.
To me it is quite obvious that it is the landlord who is suffering the injustice and the hardship by being kept out of the house he has purchased, and, therefore, this is the very case in which he should not have to prove the existence of suitable alternative accommodation. Obviously the landlord would not want to live in the house unless it presented superior
attractions to the accommodation that he could get elsewhere, and so it seems quite clear that he will be debarred from showing that there is other accommodation equally cheap. In the cases I have quoted 7s. 6d. was the rent for one house and 6s. 6d. for the other and it is a very attractive thing for a working class man to get a house of six or eight rooms at such a rent; but under this proviso the owner of the house is to be kept out of it because he cannot show that there is another house of six or eight rooms to be had at such a cheap rent. That seems to negative the whole value of paragraph (h,) by setting up a condition with which it is quite impossible for the owner to comply. He can never show that there is anything so cheap or advantageous as the house he wants to get into.
I make this further and last point. It is not here a question of the landlord who has figured in so many speeches, the landlord who is the owner of a large number of small houses or cottages but who himself is much better off, living probably in a house at a rent 10 or 12 times as high. The man envisaged in paragraph (h) is a man of more or less the same status and worldly wealth as the tenant. The only difference between them is that one has been a saving man and has bought a house, and the other is in possession of that house and will not get out of it. I say that under the Bill as it is drafted the landlord is called upon to fulfil an almost impossible condition before he can get the tenant out of the house. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment and realise that without it he is negativing one of the main purposes of the Bill. I know he will agree that nothing has caused a greater sense of hardship and injustice than that frugal people who bought their own houses should have been unable to get possession of them for so many years. One of the purposes of the Bill is to make it easier for them to get possession, but then we find this proviso, which I am moving to omit, putting up another barbed wire entanglement which it will be quite impossible for the owner to get through in his efforts to obtain possession of his house.

3.58 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
From all parts of my division, which is a largely populated county division, I get complaints of the injustice of this law. Numbers of people have bought houses for the purpose of living in them themselves or of putting their sons or daughters into them, and are having to pay more for accommodation elsewhere while the houses they have bought are occupied by somebody else. In numbers of cases the house has been bought through a building society. Those who bought were looking forward to living in their own house and paying off the money which had been borrowed from the building society. Now they find, many years after the War is over, that they are still kept out of their property, the only piece of property they possess, and they cannot understand the equity or the justice of being compelled to pay a higher rent to live elsewhere while their own house is occupied by another. I do ask the Minister to explain where is the equity of this proceeding. On the technical wording I suggest that without this proviso there is protection for very hard cases, because if one looks at the first part of the Schedule, although power is given to the court to give judgment for possession
without proof of suitable alternative accommodation
that is limited to cases
where the court considers it reasonable so to do.
Even without this proviso the court can only so act if it is reasonable. That would provide for the protection of the sitting tenant in borderline cases, or where very grave hardship would result by displacing the tenant. It is a little difficult to understand why it should say:
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any alternative accommodation available for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order or judgment than by refusing to grant it.
If I read that aright, it means that if there is no alternative accommodation provided, the judge cannot give judgment under this proviso. That is grossly inequitable. The case of great hardship is provided for in the first part, and there is no need for this proviso.

4.3 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): My hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has been so vigorous in his attack on this particular provision throughout our proceedings, that I cannot but feel some regret at this final stage in having once more to disappoint him. What is the case in point? It has been put both by the hon. Member for Barnstaple and by the hon. and learned Member for East Grin-stead (Sir H. Cautley) with great force and great clearness. It is the case of people in a small way who have bought a house with their savings or own a house, and have looked forward to living in it and desire to do so. It is said, What equity or justice can there be in denying them the right to live in that house? Of course, the answer is that under the provisions of the Bill they are not denied that right. They are given a full and fair opportunity of securing possession of the house under all reasonable conditions.
Let me ask the House for a moment to examine the actual provisions of the Bill. The owner of a house can obtain possession if he desires it, first of all, for himself; secondly, if he desires it for his child, and, according to the extension made by this Bill, if he desires it for one of his parents. The last is an extension given by the Bill, because previously he could not have got it if he wanted it for his parents; it is a humane case that needs consideration. Therefore, we have already extended the opportunities of the small owner to obtain possession of his house. It is said by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, "Why attach to this particular power the requirement of alternative accommodation?" The answer is that no such requirement is attached by the Bill. This is a matter in which, I can quite understand, the provisions of the law of rent restriction are not quite clear at first sight, but the fact is that the obtaining of possession of a house by the owner for occupation by his parent or child is not subjected to the condition to which other applications for possession are subjected, namely, that of establishing alternative accommodation.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple asked what is the meaning of the proviso to which he objects? That proviso says not that it shall be a requirement to show alternative accommodation before possession is obtained under these conditions, but that the court shall take into consideration whether greater hardship
will be entailed upon the owner or upon the tenant by making the order required. I will say a word about that provision in a moment. It says that in considering where the greater hardship lies whether on the landlord or the tenant—differing in that respect from the ordinary provision as regards alternative accommodation, because in the ordinary provision there is no reference to accommodation for the landlord at all—the court shall take into consideration this question of alternative accommodation. I think that is common sense, because even if you did not say so the court would certainly do it. It could not come to a judgment where the greater hardship lay without taking into consideration this question of what sort of house the owner was living in, or what sort of house the tenant could move into. Therefore, the provision is much more general than are the ordinary provisions with regard to alternative accommodation.
There is another important change made by the Bill in order to make this provision work more smoothly. In the past the onus lay upon the applicant, the owner who wanted his house, of proving that there would be greater hardship involved in refusing the application than in granting it. The onus of proving greater hardship lay upon the landlord. The Bill changes that and in future the onus of proving where greater hardship lies will rest with the tenant, which will make it a more simple and common-sense procedure for the court.
FiNaily, I cannot but think that on merits the provision requiring proof of greater hardship must commend itself to common sense. It is surely a position that requires no defence to say that in such circumstances, or indeed in any circumstances, the court should not be required to make an order when it is satisfied that making that order entails greater hardship than not making the order. I think therefore that the provisions of the Bill go as far as it is possible, or reasonable or necessary to go in order to facilitate the recovery of their houses by owners, under the conditions to which the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead referred.

Sir B. PETO: If this proviso is so reasonable and necessary in paragraph (h,) why does the right hon. Gentleman not apply it to paragraph (g)?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think my hon. Friend will see that it is for this reason, that the provision as to greater hardship is really only necessary where you have to compare the requirements for accommodation. Where you have that requirement of alternative accommodation, that is a satisfactory answer to the tenant who says that it is hard lines for him to go out, as there is not a house for him.

4.10 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I am sorry the Government have not acceded to a very reasonable Amendment. Most of us who have a large correspondence with regard to these Acts, know that one thing which annoys, infuriates and aggrieves so many people is that when a man has purchased a house where, when he retires from work or for some other reason, he desires to spend the rest of his days, he is prevented from having it because some person who got it some time ago is established there. The Minister spoke of whichever party has the greater hardship. Surely that is not quite fair. It might very reasonably be said that it was a greater hardship on the sitting tenant to have to move his goods into another house to enable the owner to come in. I would venture to say it would be very much fairer if some words were put in such as, "unless in the opinion of the court a very serious hardship should be cast upon the sitting occupier."
As the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) pointed out, where will anybody in these days be able to obtain a six-roomed house for 7s. 6d. a week? It is undoubtedly a very serious hardship on a man who has a house of six rooms for 7s. 6d. a week to have to move out of it, but surely it is a greater hardship on the man who, by exercising his judgment, has obtained a good bargain by putting his money into a house in which he wishes to spend the remainder of his days, to be excluded from that house by reason of the fact that the sitting tenant has had it for 7s. 6d. a week for many months or years. Just as one argument is always used in support of our leasehold system, that the man who bought the ground lease of the house and had it for a small rent for a great many years, ought to be able to set aside such sums as will enable him to pay a normal rent for the property when the lease falls in, so I say that the man who has had a
house such as that indicated by the hon. Member for Barnstaple for 7s. 6d. a week for a number of years, ought to be in a position to set aside a sufficient sum, at any rate, to help him to pay rather more in the future, I do not think that the alternative put upon the court in this proviso is sufficiently clear to enable the court to decide that, unless there is very serious hardship involved, the man who has bought the house either for himself or a member of his family, should be entitled to obtain possession of it.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise with a certain amount of pleasure on this occasion, because it gives me an opportunity of supporting the Government's point of view. It is rather a rare occasion as far as this Bill is concerned, but I think that when they do take the right view one should express one's reasons for agreeing with them. There are one or two points ovErieoked by my hon. Friends who supported this Amendment, and while agreeing with them that a person who has inherited or purchased a house which comes within the provisions of the Act is on many occasions placed in a very serious position because he is unable to obtain possession, nevertheless the fact remains that the intention of the whole of the Acts is to retain as large a number of houses and parts of houses available for the accommodation of those who cannot find alternative accommodation. Consequently the question of greater hardship is one of extreme importance. It cannot affect the person who has bought a house, because, as I am sure hon. Members will realise, when a person has bought, particularly while the Acts have been in operation, he has done so with the full knowledge that he cannot gain possession. Having seen the Acts extended from time to time, such a person must have realised that his purchase was of a very speculative nature when he purchased a house in which he was not actually living or in which his son or his daughter was not actually living. Consequently, it is not a severe hardship to say to him that he must prove to the satisfaction of a court that greater hardship would result to him if he were not given the opportunity to occupy that house than would ensue to the individual
who was actually occupying the house at the time when the purchase was made, or who came in subsequently.
There is another very serious point. Assuming that a landlord or his son or his daughter gets possession, it means that there is one house less available for those who have not been in a position to purchase, but it means something else. If in the course of, say, one year that landlord thinks that he will not be able to continue in the house and decides to sell it, he is not in a position to do so. Although he went in with the most honourable intentions of occupying the house as a residence for himself, and notwithstanding the fact that he may have let it to his son or daughter as a residence, circumstances have turned out in such a manner that he finds that those honourable intentions have unfortunately to be altered, and that he can no longer retain the house. That is putting the position at its best. He has two alternatives; he can let the house, and if he does so, he must let it at a rental which is permitted by the Acts, or he may sell, with the possibility of getting a much greater price, from a person who desired to occupy the place himself, than would be obtained in the ease of a purchase by a person who was going to let the house, in order that that person might be able to occupy the place himself. We ought to walk very warily when we propose to make what, in my view, is a very serious and considerable extension of the removal of control. I hope that my hon. Friends will realise the truth of my argument from that standpoint, and that they will not press this matter to a Division.

Sir B. PETO: In view of the statement that the Minister has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE 2.—(Consequential and Minor Amendments.)

4.18 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 1, column 1, after "1920," to insert the words "as re-enacted by Section four of the Act of 1923."
This is only a matter of the clarification of the Bill, so that when it becomes an Act people may be able to refer to it. It is a masterpiece of legal hiding of the provisions of an Act. On the Second
Schedule, we have been asked to make some amendment to Sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Act of 1920. I referred to Section 5 of the Act of 1920, and I found that there is no Sub-section (7). Therefore, anybody who referred to this Bill when it becomes an Act, and were to go to the Library of the House of Commons or anywhere else, and then to the Act of 1920, he would be unable to find Sub-section (7) or to know what we were dealing with. I put this point to a certain gentleman concerned with the drafting of the Bill, and I said: "They have made a blot." He said: "Not a bit of it." He pointed out to me how, in the Act of 1923, Section 4 says:
The following section shall be substituted for Section five of the principal Act.
If we look at the substituted Section we find that Sub-section (7) had been added to it. Therefore, we have to know the whole of the contents in detail of each of these Acts, and then know that when this Bill says "Section 5 of the Act of 1920," it does not mean Section 5 of the Act of 3920 as it appears in the Library of the House of Commons, but that Section which has been substituted in a later Act. I am asking for pity for the poor lawyers who make their hard-earned money out of these Bills. I should not like them to be similarly bewildered and delayed in their proceedings. They are not always as quick as possible, and they would not be able to find their way. One of them said: "As a matter of fact the lawyers do not refer to the original Bill. They refer to a 3s. 6d. manual on the subject." Are we to depend for the law of England upon a 3s. 6d. manual? I think it is most demeaning- If, as I am told, this is the ordinary procedure in the draftsmanship of Bills, I can only suggest that those who draft Government Bills should go to school again, or should take a research course, in order to study how Bills should be drafted, and that they should adopt a nomenclature and a terminology that will be understanded of the ordinary people. I am proposing that ordinary explanatory words should be put in after the words "Section 20."

4.22 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: I was not, in practice, in the same plight as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), because I had the book to which he referred, but I notice that it cost
6s. 6d. and not 3s. 6d. If the simple words that he proposes were added to the Bill, they would make the Bill far clearer. I am speaking not merely on behalf of the legal profession, but on behalf also of those laymen who try to see their way round these Rent Restrictions Acts, as many of them have to do. I see no harm in adding these few words, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to concede this small Amendment.

4.24 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has been making an attempt to simplify the Anglo-Saxon of the Bill. I hope that he will also make an attempt in another direction, by persuading the medical profession to write out their prescriptions in English. I am not so sure that the position has been clarified by the method which he has adopted. It is not necessary to buy a 3s. 6d. text-book; one has only to consult the Act of Parliament, and wherever you find reference to Section 5 of the Act of 1920, provision is made that for that Section is substituted Section 4 of the Act of 1923.

Major LLEWELLIN: Does the hon. Gentleman say that if one looks at the Statutes printed in 1920, one will find that reference?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I presume that if one is going into the subject of rent restrictions one does not confine oneself to one Statute. One must be up-to-date and see the whole law as it is to-day. The Amendment does not raise a big point, except that this is the usual method of drafting. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Bill makes it perfectly plain in the simplest language, simpler than I could state it in words. I will read it. It is on page 13 of the Bill, and is as follows:
References in this Act to the principal Acts or to any of them or to any provision of those Acts or of any of them shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to those Acts, that Act or that provision, as the case may be, as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act.
That ought to be plain. If we are to adopt the method suggested by the hon. and gallant Member we shall have to go through this Bill, and wherever a Clause
has been altered we shall have to make a special cross-reference, and confusion will be worse confounded. On the new Clause, where the Minister has to add to the Bill provisions about the half-crown recoverable rent in respect of agricultural cottages, reference is made to Section 5 of the Act of 1920. You would have to insert a reference at the side in this form:
Section 5 of the Act of 1920, which was substituted for the original Section by Section 4 of the Act of 1923, as amended by Section 1 of the Prevention of Eviction Act of 1924, and as further amended by Section 3 of, and the First Schedule to, this Act.
Life is complicated enough as it is, but it would be intolerable if we had to make all those references. What is more, I can assure my hon. Friend, that whilst this Clause is correctly drafted, his Amendment is not correctly drafted, because the Act of 1923 has Since been amended by the Act of 1924.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Section 2 of this Bill begins:
Subject as hereinafter provided, Section two of the Act of 1923 (which provides for the exclusion of dwelling-houses from the application of the principal Act in certain cases).
Is not that a matter of explanation which, in his words, "leaves confusion worse confounded"?Why should an explanation not be given in this case?

Mr. JANNER: Would the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that when this Bill becomes an Act he will take into consideration the difficulties that exist at the present time, and that he will bring the matter before the consolidating committee in order that we may have a consolidation act of all the Acts relating to rent restriction?

4.28 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I was not at all convInced by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He suggested that this was the usual method of drafting. Acts of Parliament are meant for the information of the public as to what is the law, and, even if this is the usual method of drafting, the Amendment, if it does not make the matter absolutely clear, it makes it a little bit clearer. It gives notice that you have to refer to the Act of 1923. An ordinary person reading this BUI. says, "Oh, Sub-section (7) of Sec-
tion 5 of the Act of 1920,"and the first thing he does is to go to the library and to look at the Act of 920. He may not have a textbook. Lawyers sometimes think they know better about the law than the writer of a textbook who is often a person junior to themselves at the Bar. If these words are not sufficient let us have any further words in order that anyone who is reading this Schedule may know exactly what it is to which he has to turn. Surely, the law is for the information of the ordinary members of the public, and I cannot understand why the usual method of drafting in the past should be followed in the future when it is obscure. I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, even though it may be a breach of some of the traditions of drafting. I think that all legislation by reference is deplorable, and not at all in the interests -of the general public, and, when attention is drawn to something which is extraordinarily misleading, the Government are acting in a peculiar way if they refuse, because these obscurities have obtained in the past, to deal with them in the present circumstances.

Amendment negatived.

4.32 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 24 to 30.
Consequential upon this Amendment, if the House see fit to adopt it, will be a later Amendment of mine to the Third Schedule—in page 18, line 8, column 3, to leave out from the word "provisos" to the end of line 16. The Bill as drafted seeks to repeal a provision which for 13 years has given security to a large number of occupiers of small houses in this country against excessive rating and against differentiation in rating. Perhaps I may be allowed to direct the attention of the House to what is contained in Sub-section (9) of Section 12 of the Act of 1920. That Sub-section provided that, in the case of houses which were erected after, or in course of erection on, the 2nd April, 1919, if such a house formed part of a housing scheme under the Act of 1919. the greatest value of the house for rating purposes was not to exceed the rent actually charged by the local authority; and, in the case of any other house built after April, 1919, the greatest value for rating purposes was not to exceed the rent charged by
the local authority for a similar house built by them.
These provisions give a certain amount of security to the occupiers of these small houses, and I would ask the Minister why it is sought to make this change, and why is it sought to make it for England only? If the Government's Bill goes through as it is, the small occupiers of such houses in Scotland will still have the same protection which they have always had, but those who live in England will be denied that protection. There may be, in a number of cases, an actual raising of the assessments of these small houses, and the effect of the words which the Government have put into the Bill here will be to take out that part of Sub-section (&) of Section 12 of the Act of 1920 which says that the gross rateable value shall not exceed a certain figure.
I know that an anomaly was introduced into the rating law by the Act of 1920, and that the Central Valuation Committee have drawn attention to the existence of this anomaly. If the anomaly exists in a large number of cases, then the House and those who support the Government should know what they are doing. What they are doing is to alter the law so that a large number of assessments may be increased, and we shall be faced with the same position in which we were at the time of the Election of 1929, that is to say, that immediately a large number of increased assessments will be served on occupiers in the area. If, on the other hand, it is not a big anomaly, why make any alteration at all? In my view, at any rate, the anomaly is not a bad one, and I think the matter should remain as it is for two reasons. In the first place, it gives a certain amount of security to the man who builds a new house, because he knows that his rating assessment cannot be larger than the amount for which the house will let. He knows what his outgoings will be, and, if he takes advantage of the new Government scheme of building houses through the building societies for owner-occupiers, it is a very good thing that he should know that, if he occupies one of these houses of about the same size as a council house in the neighbourhood, his assessment will correspond with the rents of those council houses. In the second place, the second part of Sub-section (9) of Section 12 of the Act of 1920, which the Government are now seeking to repeal,
ensures that privately-owned and privately-built houses in the area shall be assessed at the same rates as council houses in the area.
With regard to new houses, I think that these provisions are good and should remain, now that local councils are very largely the builders and owners of houses themselves. One has to remember that the actual rating authority which does the assessment is a Committee of the Council, who are large property owners in the area, and it is just as well that there should be in our Statutes a provision which will not allow of any differentiation of rating as between council houses and other houses. Indeed, if this provision is altered, even such councils may find the assessments of their own houses put up, because we now have the County Valuation Committee, who can come in with any proposal that they like. It seems to me that the House of Commons would be well advised to leave the law as it is with respect to these small assessment\s, because they all relate to houses to which the Rent Restrictions Acts would have applied had they been erected before April, 1919—that is to say, to leave them on the simple basis of rent, so that the: occupiers of such houses will have no difficulty if they want to contest their assessment. They will know that, if they are assessed at a figure not higher than the rent which they pay, that is a fair assessment, and they will not have to go into all the questions of whether they are assessed higher or lower than their neighbours; and one knows that people of that sort cannot afford to go beyond the Assessment Committee if it comes to a question of appealing against their rate assessment. I would ask the Government, therefore, to consider the matter very thoroughly before they insist upon leaving these words in the Schedule. The effect, as I have said, can only be to raise assessments—it cannot be in any case to lower them—on small houses within this class, and to that I, at any rate, am opposed, because I think that the matter should be simple and certain, and that there should be no differentiation between privately built houses and council houses in the area. For these reasons I hope that the Government, even if they are not able to accept these two Amendments here and now, will at any rate promise to give them full consideration before the Bill goes to another place,
and I hope that, as a result of that consideration, they will decide to leave matters where they are, and not to let the Ministry butt in as it unfortunately did before the 1929 Election, with such grave results to a large number of us.

4.42 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to put this matter broadly on the general question of policy. Unquestionably, local authorities may have in certain cases from time to time to raise their assessments, and I am afraid that certain local authorities who wish to exalt their own houses at the expense of private enterprise, and who object to private enterprise, may increase the assessment on similar houses which have been erected by private enterprise. I may not understand the point rightly, but, if so, no doubt the Solicitor-General will explain it. As it appears to me at the moment, however, it looks as though the provision in the Act of 1920, which was inserted in order to see that these tenants are equally treated on the same lines, whether they are in council houses or in private enterprise houses, is going to be done away with, and local authorities will have power arbitrarily, according to their own desires, to raise the assessments of one kind of houses as against the other. The provision in question has been useful and satisfactory, and I do not think it should be done away with.

4.44 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): This is a rather complicated technical point, and I think that the simplest way to explain the necessity for the proposed Amendment of the Act of 1920 is to remind the House of the reasons why the words which it is now proposed to omit were inserted in that Act. I think it is fair to say that it was assumed, at the time when the Act of 1920 was passed, that it was impossible for rating authorities to assess controlled houses at a greater annual value than the controlled rent, and on that assumption Parliament naturally thought that, where there would be side by side controlled houses and newly built houses which were not controlled, but which, except for the difference in respect of control, were to all intents and pur-
poses the same class of property, it was unreasonable that the rating authority should put a higher assessment on the one class than on the other. Therefore, this provision was inserted, which, in effect, made the local authority's housing estate the test of what the rateable value should be.
The idea was to produce uniformity of assessment. That was the basis upon which the thing was clone. But it was decided a year or two later the House of Lords that an assessment committee was not in the least bound by the top limit of a controlled rent in assessing the annual value of property, and that in the case of controlled property, as in the case of decontrolled, they could find out for themselves what was the value which the hypothetical tenant would be prepared to pay, unlimited by the controlled rent. So that really was the whole basis on which this Clause was inserted in the 1920 Act. The Marley Committee recommended that it should be taken out, and the Central Valuation Committee have recommended that it should be taken out in the interest of getting the very uniformity which it was origiNaily put in to attain. In these circumstances the Government think that it would be right to follow the recommendations of the Committee. I do not say this is impossible that it may result in the raising of assessment. It is impossible to deny that. All I can say is that that is a matter of pure speculation and guesswork. Theoretically there is no reason why it should result in the raising of assessment. But it certainly will result in greater uniformity, and that was the object origiNaily aimed at by the words that it is now proposed to take out.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, column 2, at the end, to insert the words:
Section 18 of the Act of 1923.—In Subsection (2) there shall be substituted, for the reference to paragraph (ii) of Subsection (1) of Section five of the principal Act, a reference to sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (g)of the First Schedule to this Act.
This is purely a drafting Amendment and requires no explanation. The 1923 Act contains a reference to the notorious Section 5 of the 1920 Act which was repealed, and this Amendment simply
corrects that reference and refers it to Clause 3 of this Bill and the Schedule to it.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I understand that this is a matter of explanation, and we have been told that explanation would make confusion worse confounded. I beg to oppose.

Amendment agreed to.

THIED SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Mr. PEAT: I beg to move, in page 18, line 16, column 3, at the end, to insert the words:
;in Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen the words 'before the passing of this Act.'
This is purely a consequential Amendment relating to a Clause which was accepted by this House. Therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any explanation of it.

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause7which was accepted by the House last night.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 18, line 30, column 3, to leave out the words:
Part II and insert ' Sub-section (2) of Section one and Part II of the Schedule.'
This Amendment is moved to correct a misquotation of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act.

Amendment agreed to.

4.50 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In moving the Third Reading of a Bill which has now occupied the attention of the House for some considerable time, we remind ourselves that we are undoubtedly dealing with a Bill which has a close connection with the life of a very large part of our fellow countrymen and fellow countrywomen. How great are the issues with which, in our quiet proceedings in Committee, we have been concerned, is proved by the fact that they directly affect no fewer than 7,000,000 houses, and one of the most intense interests in human life, the condition of the homes of the 7,000,000 people concerned.
It is a remarkable circumstance that the consideration of this Measure, which so intimately affects domestic life, has passed in an atmosphere which has been entirely free from any heat or acrimony. I like to think that that is due, in the first place, to a recognition that the object of the Bill has been to give fair play to both parties concerned, the occupiers on the one hand and the owners on the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has managed to detect a third interest, but after all the interests concerned belong either to the one section or the other.
The Opposition has opposed the Bill, as it is the function of His Majesty's Opposition to do, but has opposed it without any acrimonious recriminations. That I attribute to the circumstance that the Bill on its face bears provisions which are obviously designed for the benefit of both those great interests. At the end of these Debates I am convInced that the Majority of the House are satisfied that in this Bill not only have the interests of both landlord and tenant been sought, but that as a matter of fact fair play has been achieved by the provisions of the Bill. What is the great object which we must have before us in any recasting of legislation which deals with housing problems? It is, of course, at bottom the provision of a proper house for everybody in the country at a possible rent. The meeting of that most essential want, a proper house at a possible rent, depends upon the supply of houses. On that also depends the other great condition which makes for happiness, and that is security of occupation. All these things depend upon an adequate supply.
This Bill is designed in order to promote the supply of houses in a manner which has been dealt with previously and which I need not describe now. It is designed to promote the supply of proper houses at possible rents by removing, wherever it is safe and right to remove them, those restrictions from the conditions affecting housing property which, as we all know, are hostile to the free supply of the houses that we want to see. It is a part of the general housing policy of the Government. I cannot on this occasion do more than refer to the other side of that policy which we have just carried through in the Housing Bill, but I may refer with gratification to the circumstance that already we see some
improvement in the building activities of the country. Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc. Because there is an improvement after the introduction of our Measures it is not necessarily the consequence of them. Nevertheless it is reasonable to think that this new direction which we have given to policy has been in part responsible for the improvement in employment in the building trade. Since last January unemployment in the building trade has decreased by some 100,000 persons. That is partly seasonal, but an encouraging circumstance is that that decrease has been precisely double this year what it was last year or the year before.
The principal object of this Bill, this part of the housing policy of the Government, is to maintain the pool of small houses available for the wage earners during the remainder of the period during which it may be anticipated that the supply of those houses will not be equal to the demand. The conditions under which we approach these problems are these: As regards a certain class of houses supplies have overtaken the demand, and therefore as regards those we can remove control. That is the "A" class. As regards another class of houses, the "B" class, the supply is gradually overtaking the demand, and therefore decontrol must continue to be gradual. As regards the "C" class, the small house for the wage earners, supply has not yet begun to overtake the demand, and therefore for the present decontrol is not possible.
The Bill fixes the period of five years as a reasonable period to allow those forces which are at work in increasing the supply to produce such a position as to make it safe to decontrol "C" class houses. It thus secures the most important condition for the future, that control shall not continue in a merely automatic manner year after year. Were such a state of affairs to exist there would be danger that in the press of Parliamentary business the time might be allowed to overrun at which decontrol would be possible. That would be most hostile to the interests of the wage earners, because it could not but lead to a restriction of the supply of "C" class houses, and to an artificial maintenance of their rents after the time when forces might be expected to come into
play which would lead to a reduction. We secure a review of the position at the end of five years.
Meanwhile the principal object and the principal achievement of the Bill is, by the cessation of the gradual decontrol of "C" class houses, to make sure that during the next five years there shall be no reduction of the pool of small controlled houses available at a controlled rent to the lowest paid wage earner, and thus to put an end to, the growth of that recognised abuse and grievance, the sharp rise that takes place in many cases now in the rent of a small house upon its decontrol. The remedying of that abuse is in itself a purpose which it has been well worth while to have served by this Bill.
There are other and not inconsiderable improvements in the law, and benefits to all interests concerned, which will be secured by the Bill. Let us take it, first of all, from the point of view of the occupier. From their point of view the Bill for the first time will give the wage earner who is looking for a house, before going into a new house, an opportunity to find out with absolute certainty whether the house is controlled or decontrolled. It does that by means of a new register of decontrolled houses, so that a mere visit to the local office and a glance at the register will tell the intending tenant whether or not the house which he proposes to take is one where he can rely on a controlled rent or one where he cannot rely on a controlled rent. It will thus avoid the possibility which has existed in the past of a tenant being trapped by an unscrupulous landlord.
In the second place, the Bill introduces a provision which I am confident the House will consider most beneficial for the protection of sub-tenants. Very strong, widespread and well-founded have been the complaints on behalf of subtenants of profiteering on the part of the direct tenants who are sub-letting to-them. It has been nothing else than an abuse of the order of society under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and some remedy was called for. I believe that the remedy proposed by the Marley Committee, which is now embodied in the Bill, is the most practicable that could have been found. The sub-tenant had before, as a matter of fact, a legal remedy against profiteering, but in order to exercise it; he had himself
to exercise the initiative and seek the aid of the courts. We know how hard it is to persuade tenants to do that. They have not the habit of going round to the courts and starting legal proceedings. To find a remedy, then, for this profiteering, we had to look for some way of giving someone else an interest in stopping it, and obviously the person who was most likely to be interested was the ultimate owner of the house. The advice presented by the Marley Committee, and embodied in the Bill, was sound and practicable, and that was to give the owner of the house a practical interest in putting an end to the profiteering, by the provision that if his tenant profiteered he could recover his full interest in the house and turn the profiteering tenant out.
Another important provision in the Bill is the provision by which sub-tenants in particular, and tenants as a whole, will be assisted in the state of ignorance to which I have referred by further means of information as to their rights. They will be assisted in understanding what their rights are, which, after all, is the first step towards securing those rights, by provisions which will enable local authorities to publish information for the benefit of the tenants upon what their rights are. Secondly, a most important provision, which has not attracted as much attention in our proceedings as it deserves, is the provision for making clearer and more informative the notices in the rent book. After all, the rent book is the tenant's Bible; it is his Holy Scripture as regards his relations with his landlord; and the best way of getting new information across to the tenant is to put it into his rent book. Full use has not been made of that opportunity in the past, and I am confident that by the powers given under the Bill to the Minister of Health to make a better use of that opportunity, the tenants will be greatly benefited.
From the point of view of the owners there are also provisions which, I think, are both of advantage in remedying hardships and are fair to both parties. The principal alteration made by the Bill, the principal advance in the direction of a more reasonable basis in the relations of owner and occupier from the point of view of the owner, are the new provisions as regards possession. The Bill recognises and establishes this principle, that
the owner is entitled to the possession of his premises from a tenant whenever he can establish that there is another house, which is practically equivalent to the house in question, available for the tenant to occupy. Alternative accommodation is made for the first time in itself a sufficient ground for the owner to obtain possession of his premises. That, I think, must commend itself to common sense, because if there is another house into which the tenant can go, just as good and suitable to him as the house out of which he will be moving, there is no reason why he should continue, against the interests and the will of the owner, to occupy a house which is no better than the other house which is available to him.
That provision is much assisted by a new provision which will clarify and simplify it, namely, the definition of what alternative accommodation can be. It is no good saying to the owner that he can get possession of his house if he can find alternative accommodation, if he finds it impossible to find accommodation which will meet the definition of alternative accommodation in the Act. Under the new conditions established by this Bill, we have a practical definition of alternative accommodation which will make that provision operative. From the point of view of the owner, as of society as a whole, the provision in the Bill for the reduction of overcrowding is most beneficial and in itself most worth while. It will enable the owner to advantage himself at the same time as he advantages the public health, by preventing improper overcrowding on the part of his tenants.
At bottom, these provisions in the interests of the owner on the one hand and of the occupier on the other are in the interests of both classes, because they make, from the point of view of the owner, provisions which, while being fair to the occupier, sweep away unnecessary restrictions upon investments in house property, make such investments more attractive, and tend to promote the supply of houses for the people as a whole. Therefore, if we hold before our eyes as a principal object the increase of supply, which alone can meet the reduction of rents which is wanted in order to ease social conditions, we could find no better way of attaining that increase of supply, with its consequent reduction
of rents, than by the abolition of restrictions upon investments in house property which are no longer necessary in the interests of the tenant.
We have made some very interesting and useful Amendments in the Bill during its passage through Committee. We have clarified the position as regards the occupants of the "A" houses, and extended their present tenure until September, in order to give time for readjustment between them and their landlords. We have taken what I believe is a most important step for the promotion of that reconditioning work on bad houses which is a great social object at the present time, by enabling an owner who spends money under reasonable conditions upon the reconditioning of his house to charge a fair return for the money invested, which he formerly could not do. We have enacted that a certificate of disrepair, which enables a tenant to refuse to pay the permitted increase of rent, shall automatically issue whenever a certificate is issued under the Housing Act that the house is not fit for occupation —a very important provision for the protection of tenants against bad landlords who do not do repairs. We have assisted the management of estates by provisions regarding agricultural cottages, and we have done a good turn for the occupants of shops and business premises in category "A" by making quite sure that the original intention of Parliament shall prevail and that they shall enjoy their rights of compensation under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
There is a species of criticism, when a Bill has been amended in Committee, which is apt to say, "You, the Minister, ought to be ashamed of yourself for introducing a Bill which was not perfect in the first place, but was capable of improvement." Not at all. I should rather be ashamed of myself if I conducted a Bill through the House of Commons and through Committee without its being improved, because we are fully conscious of the large stock of knowledge and experience that is here, and we are aware of the advantages which we gain by bringing fresh minds to bear on the problem. I am sufficiently a believer in the House of Commons. I am sufficiently a House of Commons man, to take pride in the fact that we have thus made use
of our opportunities to introduce useful improvements into the Bill.
FiNaily, I am aware that the Labour party have opposed the Bill throughout, and I believe that they have opposed it upon these grounds that, to their minds —it may not have been in the forefront of their words—they desire to see rent restriction as a permanent system, and not only so, but they desire to use it as a foundation upon which to build further restrictions, further limitations, further interferences, to regulate the relations between owner and occupier in the provision of houses. That, I believe, would be a fatal policy. I believe it; would have no result in the long run save further to restrict the supply of houses. I believe we took the course best adapted to secure that supply which we desire to see. We have faced the facts of the case in this Bill, and have brought our law upon this subject up to date by sweeping away all those restrictions which are no longer necessary, while securing the position as regards the tenants of small houses where restrictions are still necessary because the supply is not yet adequate. In these circumstances, I believe the House will come to the conclusion that there can be no further obstacle to giving this Bill its Third Reading.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think that, in spite of any criticisms we may level against the policy of the Government in connection with housing and rent restriction, I shall be voicing the opinion of practically everybody in the House in congratulating the Minister and his deputy on the manner in which they have handled this Bill throughout the whole of these proceedings. There is no doubt that they have mastered every line, every word, and every comma in the Measure. In saying that it does not, of course necessarily follow that we agree with the policy embodied in the Bill. The Minister said, quite rightly, that there has been very little acrimony in the discussion of this Bill, either in the House or in Committee, and the reason surely is not very far to seek. I think the history of politics in this country may be outlined somewhat in this way: that the Labour party agitates, and educates the public, and then the Conservative party gets hold of its ideas and
translates them into law in the way that the Tories think best. There would have been no restriction at all upon rents in this country were it not for the agitation of the Labour movement outside this House of Commons. I think that that can be said and can be proved.
The Minister said to-day that 7,000,000 houses are affected in this Bill. He did not mean, of course, that 7,000,000 houses are to be controlled under the Bill. What the Government have done in bringing forward this Measure is to take us back with one fell swoop to the old Victorian idea of things. When I saw this Bill first it reminded me of the old classes on the railway—1st Class, 2nd Class, and 3rd Class—but instead of putting houses into those classes, they have given us Class "A," Class "B," and Class "C" houses, which sounds very much more respectable, I suppose.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: It was not the Government, but Lord Marley, that did that.

Mr. DAVIES: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the Government are compelled to put into operation the recommendations of any committee of any kind? As a matter of fact, Governments have failed more often than otherwise to put such recommendations into operation; and I think the hon. Member will find out, if he compares the recommendations of the Marley Committee, of which I think he was a member, with this Bill, that the Government have not implemented them all in exactly the way in which that committee recommended.
We have not been as critical of the Measure as would otherwise have been the case because the Bill, at any rate, controls for the first time millions of houses, as against the control of tenants. That is very important especially in relation to working-class cottages. I imagine that the vast Majority of the houses in my own division will be Class "C" houses. The Bill divides houses into three territories, London, Scotland and the provInces, and divides them once again into three categories, Classes "A," "B" and "C." When we speak of the provInces in relation to housing accommodation, we ought to remember that, whatever difference there may be between the Metropolis and the provInces, the difference between cities and urban and rural
districts in the provInces is as great as that prevailing between the provInces and the Metropolis. We all seem to accept the -idea that the provInces provide us with a housing standard which is equal throughout. It is not true at all. In Manchester and Liverpool housing conditions will be entirely different from those in small urban areas like the division that I represent.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill held an even balance between all parties, I think any fair-minded person will come to the conclusion right away that in the very nature of the case the tenant is always disadvantaged under the law by comparison with the position of the owner of the property. Consequently, it is very difficult to agree with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion on that score. He declared that supply has already overtaken demand in Class "C" and is gradually overtaking it in the case of Class "B" houses.
The main criticism that I have to make of the Measure is in relation to Class "B" houses. The Class "B" house in a small urban district in a county is, in fact, the house of the well-to-do, but in a large city very often it is the abode of the professional man, whose income sometimes is not more than £200 a year; and I really think the Bill ought to have been improved in favour of the tenant of Class "B" house. I do not know what is going to happen in Scotland under this Act, but I am confident that the housing conditions in this country cannot be divided into-compartments as it were as between the Metropolis, the provInces and Scotland. You can find, as stated, as many divisions and categories of houses and problems connected with housing in the provInces as you can find as between these three categories.
The Minister said something about employment improving in the building trade. He said the trade had shown an improvement and a liveliness during the last few months—he did not say happily that it was consequent upon the policy of the Government. Then he proceeded to-prove his case by saying that the number of building trade operatives on the unemployment register had declined. There-is less relationship as the days go by between the number of persons in employment and the number on the register. Intact the time is fast approaching when
you will have more persons unemployed outside the unemployment register than there are included. It is not correct to argue therefore that, because the number of building trade operatives on the unemployment register is declining, they are of necessity becoming employed in the building trade. What might very well happen is that they fall outside the register altogether and are not actually going back to work on building operations. I should not like the Solicitor-General to argue later in the Debate, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, that there is a great improvement in the building trade because the number of unemployed operatives is declining. What we should like to know is, how many more building operatives are actually at work, which is a different proposition altogether. That would help us considerably to understand the position.
I am sorry that nothing has been done in the Bill for the tenant in the tied cottage. I heard the argument yesterday of the difficulties of the owner of the tied cottage, and one hon. Member argued that 10, Downing Street was a tied cottage because the house went with the job, as it were. On the last occasion the tenant kept the job, in spite of the fact that he ought by all the rules of decency to have cleared out. But I do not think he will remain next time there is a change. It is indeed unfortunate that a Bill that deals with rent control does nothing at all for the tenant of the tied cottage.
If there is one thing in connection with housing that irritates the community, it is that the 40 per cent. increase in rent provided by the original Measure has not in the vast Majority of cases been utilised in repairing, painting and improving the property, as was intended. I do not think there is anything in this Measure that will help to get over that difficulty. The policy of the Government is definitely in favour of throwing the housing accommodation of the people, by this and kindred Measures, over to private enterprise. They will, I hope, not be in power at the end of five years, and they will not be able therefore to decide what shall be done then. I hope and trust, and I feel that I can prophesy, that there will be a more sensible, generous and radical-minded Government in power before the end of the five years. When
that time comes, I feel sure that the problem will not have been solved in the very easy way the right hon. Gentleman has tried to forecast in this Bill. There is one provision that is very useful indeed and that is that, instead of controlling the tenant, as has been the case hitherto, in the case of small property, the houses themselves will be controlled, and that is a great step forward. We are dissatisfied with many other provisions in the Bill, and we have indicated our displeasure in connection with some of them. We have tabled Amendments and voted on them, but that one provision of controlling small cottage property we regard as very useful, and on that score we have not brought as much criticism against the Measure as would otherwise be the case. FiNaily, some of us regard the control of small houses in Class "G" as the basis for any future action should we on this side of the House get power to deal with the rent and housing problem ourselves.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I listened to the Minister's statement and I do not wish to join in the congratulations to him more than to say, without being personal, that on each Measure his manner of handling it is constantly improving. He has opposed us but he has not done it with arrogance or with great impudence. He has met us and argued with us. He has given us nothing, but he has done it very civilly. We moved a reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading. We move the rejection now because we have come to the conclusion that the Bill, while it contains elements of goodness, in essence in many respects is bad. When we moved and divided on the Second Heading, the Labour party decided, quite rightly from their point of view, that they could not support us. But, if we had not divided against it, everyone in the House would have been taken as supporting it. We have never denied that it contains elements of goodness. Almost every Measure of every Government contains those elements. [Interruption.] The case of the Anomalies Bill is not quite fair. It was drafted in haste and thought out in anger and was not a Measure worth giving too much criticism to. The Health In-
surance Measure promulgated by the present Minister of Health was a bad Measure. It was opposed by the Labour party on the Second and Third Reading, but everyone knew then that there were elements in it which were good. If you reject a Measure it does not mean to say that it is entirely rejected. It is merely giving an instruction to the Government to introduce a new Measure in accordance with the reasons why the House of Commons have rejected the previous Measure. When a Bill of this character is rejected in this way it is right and proper for the Government to introduce another Measure to take its place. We voted against the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Bill, although it contained many good points, because we believed that certain principles were wrong. If the Amendment which we moved on that occasion had been carried, it would not have meant the defeat of the Measure, but would have been an instruction to the Government to bring in another Measure.
The present Bill is based on what is popularly called the Marley Report, and I do not think anyone in any part of the House will deny that fact. It is as well on the Third Beading that we should take stock of the matter. The Marley Committee was appointed by the Minister of Health in the Labour Government, and 50 per cent. of their number comprised members of the Labour party, and, unlike the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), they are still members of the Labour party. The committee heard evidence, examined witnesses, and produced a report which was unanimous, with the exception of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). Those who sat on the committee were not novices, as might have been said if, for instance, I had been a member of the committee. I might have been regarded as having come here by accident and as having to be tolerated, but in this case we have to remember that responsible people in the Labour party were on the committee. There was the chief woman officer of the party, and there were prominent trade union officials. Lord Marley plays an important part in the House of Lords. As they had signed the report, it was therefore regarded as the basis of what must be accepted. It has been said that that was in 1931 and that things are different in 1933. I know that
things are different in 1933, but the committee which made recommendations must have known that things were different in 1931 from what they were in 1924, and have realised that every year saw changes. A committee which reports on the permanent decontrol of certain houses must face economic facts. While from some angles it could be argued that things had got worse, it could be argued from other angles that things had got better. There are certainly more houses than there were in 1924, but, be that as it may, would anybody, would the Labour party, have said that decontrol was good in 1931? Would they have said that the 40 per cent. increase of rent was justified in 1931 and that it was not justified in 1933? This sort of thing makes me have almost a contempt for politics, because I know that if the committee had reported to the Labour Government in 1931 their recommendations in the main would have been accepted, and to come along now and use the flimsy excuse that there is a two years' difference is not treating the House with proper respect.

Mr. H0LF0RD KNIGHT: Is there not this fact, that soon after the presentation of the Marley Report in 1931 there occurred a wide range of cuts and financial disturbances affecting thousands of tenants in the country coming within these Statutes?

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is true that there were cuts in unemployment benefit. The rate of unemployment benefit when the report was signed was, for a man, wife and two children, 29s. per week. Can anyone say that a man receiving unemployment pay of 29s. per week in respect of himself, wife and two children can afford to pay an increase of 40 per cent. upon his rent?

Mr. KNIGHT: That man, if he is in a class "C" house, is still kept within the protection of the Statute, and, further, if he is the occupant of only part of the house, for the first time in the Statutes, he receives protection under the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There have been unjustifiable cuts, and I say that a sum of 29s. is not sufficient to enable a man to pay 40 per cent. increase in rent. The Marley Report was issued on the eve of the crisis in 1931, and the Government had already acted in view of the impending crisis by reducing the wages of civil
servants. The House of Commons naturally takes more interest in some Bills than in others. One is not annoyed, for example, if the House of Commons is almost empty when discussing, say, the Trout Bill for Scotland, but it is terrible on a Bill affecting 7,000,000 tenants, to see the House of Commons practically empty and the representatives of the workpeople absent almost to a man.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to be critical of people being absent, but it is terrible that there Should be only one person on the Opposition benches. The Bill deals with three parts of the country —the Metropolitan area, outside the Metropolitan area, and Scotland—and proposes to decontrol class "A" houses, to decontrol class "B" houses by a gradual process and it provides statutory control for class "C" houses. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) stated that this is the first Measure to decontrol houses. The Measure of 1923 decontrolled houses Since 1923, the moment a tenant has left his house it has become decontrolled. Consequently, this is not the first Measure for the decontrol of houses but one of a series, although it resumes control for class "C" houses. Our criticism of the Measure is that we are opposed to class "A" houses going out entirely. Many poor people in London occupy class "A" houses. They are people of moderate circumstances who are faced with the terrible task of having to keep up a respectable appearance although not receiving very good wages. This is a shocking injustice and cannot be defended.
The decontrol of class "A" houses, particularly in London and in certain big towns including Glasgow, cannot be defended, while the decontrolling of class "B" houses is altogether wrong. Class "B" house ought to have been retained under control. Class "C" house remains under control, but even there the Minister has lost an essential point. Many class "C" houses which Since 1923 have passed out of control still remain outside control. In other words, the houses that have been decontrolled Since 1923 by a change of tenancy still remain outside of
control. I think that is a serious wrong. You are going to have this sort of thing constantly happening, that houses that are decontrolled for any other reason than the accident of removal, it may be due to a death, are to be the subject of any rent that the landlord cares to extract from the unfortunate tenant, while alongside you will have another person who may be fortunate enough to live in a controlled house.
In these circumstances we think the Bill is bad. We think the Bill fails in dealing with the problem of rent. We feel strongly, it may be due to our Scottish disposition, that there is nothing about which the working people in Scotland are so keen as the question of rent and the payment of rent. I visited my mother-in-law last Saturday. She has occupied the same house for 46 years and she is now paying an enhanced rent. She finds that the difficulty in paying that rent becomes increasingly difficult, and she also finds that the house has depreciated in value. Yet she has to meet that increased rent for something that has gone down in value. There is no defence either in 1931 or in 1933 for maintaining a rent increase that is altogether unfitted for the times that we live in.
Under the original Act which gave an increase of 40 per cent. to the house owner, the owner was entitled to recover from the tenant certain increases of rates. In Glasgow under this provision the tenant does not merely pay 40 per cent, increase but 7½ per cent, is added for rates that became due as and from a certain date. Therefore, the increase to the tenant in Glasgow is 47½ per cent., and in another part of Scotland it is as high as 52 per cent. In the year 1933 the tenant has not only to meet the 40 per cent, increase but to pay certain rate increases that ought properly to fall to the landlord. We think that an increase of rent by 40 per cent, is a shocking increase, and that to allow an increase in respect of rates is indefensible from every angle. We are told by the Minister that certain improvements have been made. These improvements leave me cold. I listened to the statements about the town clerk, the county buildings or the town council offices being open so that people could visit there and learn all about the methods of control.
What concerns me most is that the class "C" house is in demand and is
remaining in demand, and the consequence is that while you may get a certain register informing people of the Act, it will rapidly fall into disuse unless there is constant enforcement on the local authorities. But there is no power of enforcing it on the local authorities. There is no penal clause if they do not do it. It reminds me of the National Health Insurance Act, which says that the first 7s. 6d. shall not be taken off the amount of Poor Law relief, but we find that because there is no penal clause attached to that provision the local authority can ignore it with impunity. I am afraid therefore that the section which seeks to give a person a controlled house will be of little value to the ordinary tenant. As to the other matters, about the tenant being looked, after in regard to sub-letting and repairs, our problem in Scotland is not a common one, because of our tenement or flat system. With regard to the whole Measure, it passes houses into decontrol that ought to remain in, we say that the "B" houses should not drop out, that to allow a rent increase of 40 per cent, to continue is unjust, unfair and indefensible, and that to allow an increase of rates to be paid by the tenant is most unfair.
Viewing the Measure generally we think that it is a terrible one and one not fully understood by a great number of people. Like many other Measures it is passing through the House little understood. That is partly because the Labour party signed the Report and the recommendations and nothing special is being said outside, and little agitation is taking place. If I was sure that the Act would be amended by other governments it might not be so bad, but I am certain that it will not be changed by any government in the immediate future. Therefore, the Bill from any angle is bad, and it is our purpose to divide against it.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I will not delay the House in covering the ground that has been so ably and completely covered by my hon. Friend. The things that I desire to say on the Measure are things that would not be appropriate to the Third Heading stage, and you would probably rule them out of order. When we opposed the Bill on
Second Reading we were ready should the Committee stage bring about improvements, ameliorations of the conditions of the people so far as housing was concerned—I mean the people of the type with whom we were principally and primarily interested—to reconsider our attitude of opposition at the Third Reading stage. But nothing that has happened in the intervening Committee stage has made any substantial difference to the opposition that we offer.
This Measure is perhaps a clearer indication to the people of this country as to the failure of the National Government to be a national government than anything else that they have done. When the National Government introduced its first King's Speech I accepted that Speech as the kind of speech one would expect from a Government in the situation in which it was meeting. I thought that Since they were cutting down the working-class standards of life in a variety of directions they might, by cutting down the rents that people have to pay, through amendment of the existing Rent Restrictions Acts, make life easier in the homes of millions of the poorest citizens, upon whom privations were imposed definitely by the action of this House. Those people might have had their homes assured to them, in most cases miserable homes, on the terms of rent and rates payments which it would have been possible for a proportion of them to meet. There is no indication of that attitude in the Measure as amended. There is no indication of any desire on the part of the Government in circumstances that are admittedly difficult for many sections of the community to make life a little easier for the people who are suffering most in every direction.
I am disappointed at the action of my hon. Friends above the Gangway. We have had a lot of differences with them. They know that we regarded their actions in the past, particularly when they were in office, as being wrong in many directions, and badly directed from the point of view of the people they were created to serve. We hoped, as did masses of their supporters in the country, that when the Prime Minister, the Dominions Secretary, and the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) and other eminent people who had been misleading them had left
their ranks, that they were entering into a new era of definite and active struggle on behalf of the poor. To-day, when I see the lack of interest evidenced by the presence of only one member of that party on the Front Bench—an hon. Member whose interest in housing we must admit is not challengable—I think that party is not showing the attitude on this question which a very large body of their supporters were entitled to expect and believed that they were going to get from them in the House of Commons.
Perhaps the strongest criticism I can make on the Bill is that while it brings no practical relief to the overwhelming Majority of the people it is wrongly conceived. It is conceived on the assumption that in two or three years hence there will be more prosperous conditions prevailing in this country; that there will be an increasing supply of houses, and that the conditions will be such that many of the things which are to be regulated by this legislation will be put right by the operations of the market. That is a complete misreading of the immediate future and, indeed, I could quote from statements made by responsible Members of the Government, statements which have been already over-quoted, to indicate that they themselves, in their general survey of the future, do not expect increasing prosperity in the near future which they anticipate in the legislation we are now discussing.
The corporation of the city of Glasgow have decided to decline any further applications from people to have their names put on the waiting list for houses, because they have already on that waiting list 100,000 people whom they are unable to satisfy. That is, roughly, 100,000 people out of a population of about 1,000,000, or 100,000 prospective householders in a population of house-holders which is probably not more than 300,000 or 400,000. When you have one-fifth of the population of Glasgow wanting houses and not able to get them, is that any indication that in the last year or so the house shortage has been overcome to such an extent as to justify the assumption that in the next year or two the market for houses will be such as to make it possible to remove the control? The Measure, as introduced, was bad, and as
amended in Committee it has not been altered in any substantial point. The reasons which urged us to oppose the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee will compel us to carry our opposition to the Third Reading also.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I cannot quite agree with hon. Members opposite in the somewhat sparse compliments they are prepared to pay to those who have piloted the Bill through the House. I am very far from agreeing with much that has been done, and I am not. in agreement that the omissions from the Bill are not very serious, but I think everyone concerned with the Measure through its various stages will readily admit that the piloting of the Bill has been of a genteel and chivalrous nature, and that those who have opposed it have received full opportunity of expressing their views and have been met with every courtesy. But that is not quite enough. Courteous treatment, even combined with the best of intentions, is not sufficient to satisfy the serious objections which many people have in respect of a Measure which affects so many people in this country. On the Second Reading of the Bill we admitted that a very substantial concession was made by the Measure. No one can gainsay the fact that the concession made in respect of class "C" houses, taken at its face value, is a healthy move in the right direction. I do not say that it is sufficient, indeed, it may perhaps be misleading, because I believe that during the period of time in which this concession will operate it will be found that those who have placed reliance on the fact that the concession will come to an end will find themselves sorely disappointed, because circumstances will not permit of the decontrol of the houses which are concerned. But standing as it does, and affecting so many tenancies, no one can deny that it should be supported and accepted as something of considerable importance.
Unfortunately there has been some whittling down of this concession. We on these benches did our best to try to get an understanding with regard to sub-tenancies. It is not so simple a matter as would appear on the surface. There are no records, no complete statistics, of the number of sub-tenancies which exist, and it is indeed difficult to know how
many thousands of people, how many tens of thousands of people, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, are affected by the question of the sub-tenancies which may come out of control by virtue of the provisions of this Bill. I am deeply perturbed about the position. In London this particular question presents itself from a very serious angle. The right of protection of a sub-tenant who has sub-let his premises with the knowledge of the landlord will be taken away, and it may result in the tenant being deprived of the privileges which other persons possess who occupy a similar amount of space, rated possibly at a greater amount than the portion of the premises he retains in the house. The sub-tenants of that tenant will be allowed to remain in the house, but when they vacate the rooms, the portions of the house which have been occupied by them will become decontrolled, and in my view the certain result will be that a large number of rooms which are at present available for the working classes will be taken out of control, in spite of the fact that the intention of the Bill is to keep the Major portion, if not the whole of premises which come under category "C," under control.
The London County Council and other important bodies who have investigated the position have declared quite categorically that this is a very serious problem, and, in my constituency, which represents to a considerable extent the position that prevails in the most thickly populated centres of London, it will undoubtedly work considerable hardship if that provision is not cancelled. We have, therefore, cause for fear about the houses which will thus become decontrolled and which may create a very serious problem indeed. We are also perturbed about the position with regard to houses not only in Class "B" but in Class "A." Circumstances have changed Since 1931. The Marley Report gave certain conclusions which have been incorporated almost wholly in this Bill, but there is no doubt that the financial position of those tenants who occupy Class "A" and Class "B" houses have changed to a considerable extent. They are not going to find it easy to get out by September, or to find alternative accommodation of a suitable nature; and if they could there would have been no harm at all in keeping these houses
within the Acts. I cannot understand why the contention is not clear to the Government that if there is a plentiful supply of these houses, or if there is likely to be a plentiful supply provided, it is obvious that no man will insist upon remaining in a controlled house when there is an opportunity for him to go to a decontrolled house at a reasonable rent. The financial circumstances of people who occupy these houses have been considerably reduced recently, and if they are to be put to the difficulty of finding houses at a higher rental, it may mean that they will have to suffer in other respects, food, clothing, the welfare of their children, in order to be able to pay a higher rent.
We suggested that a period of one year or two years might have been given within which people who occupy houses of this kind might find other accommodation. That was not an unreasonable request, in view of the circumstances which prevail, and we still hope that it will be possible to do this. We realise fully the difficulties which will be encountered by professional men and also by working men who occupy houses of this nature. It is a considerable drop from a rateable value of £105 to £45; at present, as I have tried to point out, I think with some little success, it is not a drop to £45 but it is a drop from £105 to £35. We are very disappointed that some note has not been taken of our contention in that respect because it affects a large number of houses. You have 500,000 houses which are controlled and in September can become decontrolled, and which will, of course, automatically become decontrolled as soon as notices have been served, without any more ado.
We are grateful to the Government for having granted concessions in respect of the extension of the Landlord and Tenant Act. That is a very important thing to the shopkeepers. It is important to the man who has a shop and house combined, to know that if he has been working there for many years he will be able to obtain some compensation for the goodwill which he has created in the same way as a person who had premises which did not come within the provisions of the other Rent Acts. I hope the Minister of Health and the Solicitor-General will, if they possibly can, give consideration to the question which I raised yesterday
in that respect. As far as I can see the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act will not be very useful if the tenant can be turned out on receiving a month's notice. If he can be turned into the street without even an application to the courts, I do not see what useful purpose will be served by allowing him two months to give notice of the fact that he considers compensation insufficient to satisfy his loss and that he ought to be given an extended lease. What is to happen in the meantime I cannot foresee. It may be that I am wrong in my contention upon this matter, but if I am right it is a very serious difficulty and one which ought to be remedied.
There are other contentious matters of considerable importance in connection with this Bill, but they have already been dwelt upon in the course of the Debates, and we are not anxious on this occasion to reCapttulate what has been said before. But if it is found possible in another place to make provisions concerning some of the many items which we have raised in the course of these discussions, we think that a useful purpose will thus be served. We think that the suggestions which we have offered ought to be accepted in the spirit in which we have offered them. We have not offered them in any destructive sense, but in the hope that we might assist to improve the Measure. We know that we could adopt precisely the same attitude as that of hon. Members opposite. We also know the likelihood of the success of any operation of that nature on our part. I am not going to speak on behalf of the party as a whole, but I think I may say that we Liberals reserve to ourselves the right of acting according to our judgment and I submit that that is not a right lightly to be turned down by hon. Members. There is bound to be a balancing of opinions upon a Measure of this nature. It has been said that it involves a question of right against right and undoubtedly it involves the question of whether the advantages to be gained by its proposals are likely to outweigh its disadvantages. For my own part, I do not feel at liberty to vote for the Measure as it stands, but, in view of important provisions which it contains, I am not going into the Lobby against it. Approaching the Measure as I do in that spirit I hope that the proposals which
I have made will meet with some response from the Government and that they will, even yet, grant some of the concessions to which I have referred.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: It was inevitable from the outset that a Bill dealing with such a problem as the rent problem would lead to considerable differences of opinion on matters of detail. That would be the case whatever Government brought in a Bill to deal with rents. The rent problem is one of the most intricate of our national problems, and there were bound to be differences of opinion on many parts of this Bill. I think the Government would have preferred those of their supporters who disagreed with them on these matters to have stated their views during the Committee stage, as the subjects of difference arose, so as to keep the Government in touch with feeling in the industrial constituencies which many of us on this side represent. Before the Bill leaves the House however I take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Ministers who have piloted it through its various stages for the manner in which they have met us on a great many of our Amendments. It is true that there have been other Amendments which the Government have resisted and of which they have secured the rejection. But I wish to express my satisfaction at the course which has been taken in regard to two of the matters raised during the Committee stage—a course which I think will be of great advantage to many of our constituents. I refer first to the Government's action regarding the great grievance of profiteering in the sub-letting of single rooms. That is a problem which has never been dealt with by legislation before and I think it is the most severe form of profiteering which has taken place during these difficult times. Secondly, I welcome the acceptance of the new Clause which deals with the rectification of rent books. Under that Clause it is no longer possible to enter up a rent book incorrectly and thus handicap the person who has to seek accommodation elsewhere. We are grateful to the Government for that concession.
The Government, as I say, have not agreed to some of the proposals which we desired them to accept. One was the extension of the period of notice from
one month to three, which we endeavoured unsuccessfully to secure last night. I regret too that the Government could not see their way to make some small reduction in the permitted increase. Just as internal debt is the most oppressive item in the national Budget, so is rent the most oppressive item in the household budget and, as we have reduced the internal debt in the national Budget, I had hoped that we should have been able to make some small reduction in the other respect as well. Although I regret the Minister's resistance to that proposal, those of us who are anxious to see rents reduced have still a weapon in our hands to achieve our purpose. We can throw our whole weight behind the Government's policy of providing an adequate number of houses to let at rents which people can afford. I certainly propose to do all I can to persuade local authorities to back the Government's programme of providing an adequate supply of these houses. The sooner that is done the sooner will the fact of supply exceeding demand force down rents and economics may rectify the position which the Government have not seen their way to meet in this Bill.
Earlier to-day the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that one of the most noticeable features of post-War politics was that the Socialists did the agitating and other parties carried out their proposals. It was an interesting suggestion, and it bears the corollary that what the Socialists agitate for in Opposition they fail to do in office. The hon. Member made it clear that when they had the opportunity they failed to deal with this problem of rent. Then the hon. Gentleman indulged in political prophecy — an extremely dangerous pastime and one in which I have been "let down" before now. He prophesied that in 1938 his party would be in office and would use this Measure for the purposes of rent legislation of a very different kind. That presupposes that his party are going to be successful at a General Election somewhere about 1936. Even if he is right in that respect, it is certain that by 1938, probably at some time when the House is in Recess, they will have stolen away quietly during the night-watches, leaving someone else to take over the responsibility and clear up the mess. The hon. Gentleman in 1938
may even find himself a Member of some National Government—possibly one presided over by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. MAXTON: I do not know of anything that I have ever done which would justify the hon. Member in making a suggestion of that kind.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I am only making the point that political life is full of surprises, and even the hon. Member for Bridgeton does not know where he will be, politically, in 1938. That does not prevent me, however, from thanking the Ministers who have been in charge of this Bill for the concessions which they have made to those of us who disagreed with them on details during the Committee stage. I assure them that as a Member for an industrial constituency I shall do all I can to make the working of the Bill smooth among those with whom I am concerned.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am sorry that I am not in a position like the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braith-waite) to congratulate the Government upon having made concessions, because we have got no concessions from the Government. This Bill is another disappointment. In fact, we get nothing but disappointments from this Government. As far as the West of Scotland is concerned, the Bill is of no use when there is no reduction of rent in it. The Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are pledged to pre-War rents for pre-War houses, and we stand by that pledge. What is the use of all this legislation and what is the use of taking up all this time in going all round the edges of the housing problem? This problem, both in Scotland and England, is a poverty problem. People are not able to pay the rents. Rent is a veritable nightmare to the average mother in a working-class home. She does not know how to meet the demands which are made upon her for rent. It seems to be inherent in the minds of the working-class mothers that the rent must be paid, no matter what goes behind. They starve themselves in order to pay the rent.
Labour Members for years have appealed to every Government in order to do something to relieve this terrible
strain upon the working-class. We hoped that when this Bill was introduced there would be some concession along that line. We even tried yesterday to get a 10 per cent, reduction of the permitted increase, but the Minister resisted that. What use is this Bill? It is true that we get a little concession as far as decontrol is concerned. That was something, but it is infinitesimal to what the Government have done on behalf of the ruling class of this country. Here was an opportunity for the Government to relieve the terrible pressure on the poorest of the poor and on the mothers of the poor, instead of giving the brewers £14,000,000 out of the £19,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to disburse. He could have given some of these millions towards making a reduction of rent possible. It is no use replying to me that that is an idea in the air. Where there is a will there is a way. That was money, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had to disburse, and he disbursed it on those who are well supplied.

Mr. PIKE: Did the hon. Member vote that he should do so in the last Budget?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is getting a little beyond the rule that on Third Reading the discussion must be confined to what is in the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am mentioning what we expected to be in the Bill, and because it is not in the Bill I am opposing it. We are opposing it because no provision is made for a reduction in rent. Every other section of the community has had to accept reductions except the owners of the homes of the people. We consider it a standing disgrace that this powerful Government should have paid no attention to all the appeals that have been made from every side of the House. There is another item about which I wish to say a word and with regard to which I consider I was let down. That is the new Clause that was moved by the Lord Advocate last night with regard to forehand rent. I asked the Lord Advocate when I moved an Amendment that forehand rent should not be included in arrears. After I had made my speech, the Lord Advocate
asked me not to divide the House, and said that the Government would see if they could bring in a form of words that would meet my request. The form of words has been brought in and is now incorporated in the Bill. I have not been trained to understand the implication of words but, as I read the Clause, the safeguard which I asked is not there. All that we get in the new Clause, as far as I am able to read it, is that forehand rent will still be chargeable as arrears. The only concession that we have got from the Scottish Office in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, which has not received even this very favourably, is that court expenses cannot be added to arrears.

Mr. McGOVERN: The words are "may not."

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who has not been in the House for several weeks, that the Lord Advocate told the House last night that that was the concession that we were getting. He emphasised the fact by stating that he thought that the inclusion of court expenses was a cruel idea, that he was entirely against it, and that it was never intended when the law was reconstructed in 1911 that forehand rent meant that court expenses would be added as arrears. This, again, is something which is very serious for the poorest of the poor. If they understood the law it would be all right, but they know nothing about the law. They do not know anything about what we are discussing here to-day. These folk, who are not able to defend themselves, have sent us here in order to defend them, but we are letting them down in allowing this Bill to go through. The Bill has given us little or no concession that really matters as far as the working class are concerned. I question the legality of forehand rent being added to arrears because landlords are only allowed a certain amount for increased rent. If they get forehand rent, even if it be only for a month, they are getting an increase that is not tabulated, because they are to get the interest on the money. Suppose it is only a penny which the factor gets as interest on that money, he is getting something which is illegal, and which is above the standard of increased rent which the law permits. Because this Bill in no way satisfies the
working classes, not only in Scotland but in England, I am going to oppose it. The Bill is no use to us.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I should like to put a point of view. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has just described his Scottish objections to the Bill, which he has enlarged to cover England, and I understand that his general allegation is that there is nothing in the Bill of benefit to the working class. There, I think, he is mistaken. The continuance for five years of the control of "C" houses is a considerable advantage, and will bring within it many hundreds of thousands of poor people who cannot risk disturbance at this time. Again, as has been pointed out, and as I ventured to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), for the first time in this long tortuous legislation, provision has been made for the assessment of sub-lets. That is undoubtedly one of the greatest advantages which this legislation will confer. There are other features in the Bill about which the Government should be congratulated. The Minister of Health, the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have assisted the House in the matter in a very remarkable way. We are now making an addition to a body of legislation which has incurred the criticism of His Majesty's judges more than any other legislation. I hope that this latest addition will satisfy their Lordships, though, frankly, I have some doubt.
I took occasion on Second Reading to make some remarks about the decontrol of houses between the limits of £108 to £45 in London and £78 to £35 in the provInces and in Scotland. I expressed the view that that would involve a very serious disturbance, which I desired the Government to avoid. As a result, I have received a very large number of communications, both from Scotland and England, giving particulars of how the writers will be affected by this Bill. The Minister said decontrol would not involve a raising of rental or an increase of the price asked for houses. I have selected a letter from a very respectable quarter of London, and, while I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the writer, judging by his letter and the address, he seems to be a person of credence. He says:
Will you permit me to draw your attention to what is happening to decontrolled houses in this neighbourhood, Church End, Finchley? I have been a tenant at the above address Since September, 1917, at a rental of £50 per annum for the first three years and thereafter at £60, exclusive of rates. The pre-War rent was £45. My present rateable value is £47. The house I occupy is an eight-roomed house, and was built about 30 years ago. There are others not quite so old and of more modern construction; they could be bought leasehold prior to 1917 for about £450 to £500 and were let at £45 to £50 per annum. My landlord paid about £450 for this house, with a ground rent of £8. The rents now asked for decontrolled houses vary from £90 to £120 per annum and the selling price asked is, I am told, about £1,000 or more.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The same type of house?

Mr. KNIGHT: In the same road, and the selling price asked is about £1,000 or more. I could cite many other cases, but I will make this general statement—that no Member of this House who is familiar with the actual facts as to rents and selling prices will be surprised by the figures which that letter recites, because they are typical, I venture to say, of what is happening to every constituency in the country. I make an appeal to the Government, because there is still an opportunity. I hope that their Lordships, in another place, will, on reflection, see fib to recommend the Government to reconsider this matter. I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend in charge of this Bill that the evidence upon which it is founded, that of the Marley Committee, preceded those economic and financial changes in our life on which this Government came into existence. That is a point which has been repeatedly made by my correspondents, and I do not want to dwell upon it. I wish to put the figures as hurriedly and as tersely as I can. I suggest to the Government that they should have regard —

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and learned Member says things have changed, and quoted a letter from a person at Finchley who is now paying £90 a year rent, whereas other persons who are in controlled houses get them for £45. The point I want to ask is this: It the tenant in 1931, when the Marley Report came out, had to pay £90, where does the change come in?

Mr. KNIGHT: I am afraid the hon. Member did not quite follow the letter I
was reading. The point of the letter was that houses, now let at £50, on decontrol have the rent raised to £90, and that the selling price is rising from £500 to £1,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But that happened in 1931.

Mr. KNIGHT: Oh, no.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, in 1931 it was just the same.

Mr. KNIGHT: This interruption is taking up too much of my time. I am anxious not to interfere with the arrangements come to between the two Front Benches, and I resume the plea I was making. After the presentation of the Marley Report, there was a great range of cuts in the pay of civil servants, teachers, municipal employés, trade unionists and craftsmen of all sorts, consequent upon the financial situation which brought this Government into existence. At the same time there was a contraction of international trade, which reflected itself in industry, and hundreds of thousands of men and women in good positions—including those in the Civil Service, teachers and professional men— entered upon a period of anxiety which has not ended. They willingly responded to the appeal of this Government to make sacrifices, and having made those sacrifies—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is going beyond the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am most anxious not to get beyond the ambit of the Bill, but I want to remind the Government that they are now imposing on persons covered by Clause 1 of the Bill further burdens which, frankly, they cannot support. A previous speaker said that the most serious economic problem affecting most people is the question of rent, and I do not think anyone who has had actual experience of working-class and middle-class professional life could doubt that that is the case; and decontrol over these wide ranges of houses faces these people with an increase of rent and a corresponding increase of rates which they are unable to support. My right hon. Friend has pointed to some correspondence between supply and demand. He thinks that the supply keeps pace with the demand and justifies this removal of control. I am
suggesting to the Government that that is not conclusive. The mere fact that there are houses to supply the demand does not mean that a sitting tenant will be allowed to remain in his house at the same rent. He has to face the prospect of an increased rent, and, more than that, to face dispossession. He has to face leaving his home and, in many cases, his business. Those results will follow upon the legislation included in this Bill.
FiNaily, I want to say that while I think this Bill contains features which are very useful, I venture, with the greatest possible respect, to ask the Government to pause before they place these additional burdens on a wide range of citizens who cannot support them. I hope an opportunity will be taken in another place to reconsider this matter, and that before the Bill becomes law the Government will have seen the wisdom of suspending the decontrol of these sections until the financial condition of the country and the economic circumstances of the citizens warrant that course, which, in my view, they at present do not.

6.55 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Having been on the last two Departmental Committees, I would like to say how warmly I think all my colleagues on the Departmental Committee will thank Parliament as a whole, and the Minister in particular, for having implemented so very largely the report which they brought out last year. I speak not as a Member of one political party, because it is a delightful thing to remember that on that Committee, which was under the chairmanship of a peer who belonged to the Labour party, and had a Majority consisting of Labour Members, we did not discuss the matter from the political point of view, and we were able —with great difficulty, of course, as we received information from various sources which were distinctly coloured by party politics—thanks largely to the tact of the chairman, to dissociate ourselves from the party point of view to a very large extent, and to approach the subject from the point of view of what:, in the circumstances, was best for the national interest.
It is interesting to note the different attitude taken by the different sections of the Socialist party is this House. I will not deal with it now but it was very natural that the hon. Member who spoke from below the Gangway opposite should
speak from the point of view of those who dissociate themselves from the main Labour Opposition. It is very natural that with a poor electorate, with whom they wish to ingratiate themselves, they should take the line of the dole as a policy instead of the line of what is fair and just. They say that because people are very poor they cannot afford this, that and the other and we must provide it for them as relief, no matter where it comes from. That is a natural argument to be put forward in poor quarters. On the other hand, we have the official Opposition who have spoken from the point of view taken by my colleagues on the Departmental Committee who belonged to that party, that is, taking the line of what is fair and reasonable, though, of course, putting in one or two little gibes at the Unionist party, not, I feel, seriously meant.
The Socialists must be weak in their opposition on account, first, of the composition of the Departmental Committee, which was very largely composed of Members of their own party, and, in the second place, because they have, to a large extent, got in return what they wanted. This is a tenants' Bill. If it is a question of landlord versus tenant, this is primarily a tenants' Bill. The tenants gets much more out of it than the landlord. They have gained a tremendous advance for the tenants in stopping the decontrol of Class "C" houses. We have to remember, and let it go out to the world, that 5,600,000 houses remain controlled out of 9,250,000 in England, and that in Scotland 750,000 houses remain controlled out of little more than 1,000,000. So, by a large Majority, working-class houses still remain controlled, and remain controlled in spite of the great many objections put forward not only on personal grounds but on public grounds by the representatives of the landlords.
This attitude was taken up by the committee, and we want fully to recognise that these recommendations were not put forward as right or wrong for one side or the other. On behalf of the tenants they were not put forward on a dole policy. The committee also said that they were unable to accept certain views put forward with regard to profiteering. At the same time they fully appreciated that, on those who had invested their money in houses, Parliament had imposed restrictions which it imposed on
no others. That is the point of view we on the committee took strongly. Unless they take the dole point of view, people must agree with that. House owners have been particularly badly hit. They are simply one variety of tradespeople. They are selling and letting houses, just as butchers sell meat. Butchers are controlled with regard to meat in what affects public health. So are house owners, but no one suggests that butchers-should be controlled with regard to their prices. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), with his new political affiliations, would suggest that.

Mr. MAXTON: Are not the Government proceeding with an agricultural Bill' to regulate prices?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Certain provisions with regard to production are coming into force. The report says that restrictions should be lifted from any class of property as soon as that can be done in the general interest. That must be held by every section of the House, unless they repudiate this report, and we must advance along these lines. The advance has been made so prudently that it is the interest of the tenants which are mainly safeguarded. In so far as decontrol is insisted upon, county court protection is imposed all along the line. The revision of the position will not be so satisfactory as we hoped.
This Bill will improve matters, but affairs with regard to the sub-tenants will remain. Whatever we do, it will be very difficult to protect the sub-tenants where there is such a tremendous demand for their lodgings. This Bill does go a long way, but it does not do all that we, in the report, hoped it would do. It does not go quite so far as the report with regard to the lay committees which are to be set up. I doubt whether in many towns, where these committees are set up, they will do what is wanted. With regard to the difficult question of sub-tenants and repairs, these are matters which can be effected through local authorities. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) thinks that penalties should be put on local authorities who refuse to do their work. We recognise, Since Mr. Burns sent West Ham councillors to prison, that it is impossible to impose penalties on local authorities. We should educate the elec-
torate so that they may see that these local authorities do their work. It is for the electors to do their job and insist that the local authorities do their work in protecting poor tenants, especially with regard to repairs.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) appears in an entirely new role to-night. This is his first appearance as champion of the tenants and this, if I may say so, is the first occasion he has told us that this Bill is more a tenants' Bill than a landlords' Bill. He has indeed said, following the lead of the Minister of Health, that this Bill is one which has most carefully and meticulously held the balance between the landlord and the tenant. Now, as this Bill leaves us for another place, one of the authors of the Bill comes forward and says—without any kind of political motives such as he attributes to Members on this side of the House, but in a spirit of political honesty almost unknown in this House— that this is a tenants' Bill. That is not the view expressed by Members on his side of the House. Indeed, one of the most serious critics of the Bill on the Government side, the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite) has to-night been trying to get his stripes back by a speech which he hoped would meet with the favour of his own Front Bench.
On all sides of the House there has been criticism of this Bill. It does not meet the real need of large classes of tenants. In our view, this Bill is full of serious defects. The Inter-Departmental Committee's report has been quoted innumerable times. It has been regarded as the fountain of authority in all discussions on this Bill. This Bill is not even in harmony with all the provisions of the report. The hon. Member for St. Albans has just told us that, in one respect at least, the Bill does not go as far as the report. That is true. Concessions have been made, but, if we take these concessions on balance, I should say that the concessions mean less to the tenants and, on the whole, more to the landlord If we compare the Bill with the report, which the Government were not bound to adopt—it is astonishing that the present Government should adopt any kind
of report—the report itself is much better than the Bill.
On one important point, upon which the hon. and gallant Member himself touched, there was a recommendation that local committees should be asked to give information and advice. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health incorporated that provision in his Bill. That provision was allowed to stay in the Bill for several weeks and then, at the psychological moment on the Committee stage, the words "and advice" were almost surreptitiously withdrawn. That was one of the most valuable elements of the Bill—the giving of advice to the tenants. The hon. Member himself admitted, and other Members on the Government side have also admitted, that tenants are not acquainted with the law. This valuable provision with regard to giving advice was deleted, notwithstanding that it was a unanimous recommendation of the Committee. It is difficult for the Government to take this stand with regard to provisions in the Bill, that they are in the Departmental Committee's report, and then take out of the Bill certain provisions which are also in the Committee's report. I observe with sorrow that the main speakers in favour of deleting the words "and advice" were hon. Members of this House whose profession it is to make money out of giving advice to unfortunate people who have not the knowledge of the law which they themselves possess.
In the principal Act of 1932 provision was made for a transitional period. That has gone from this Bill. Nobody can foresee exactly what the situation is likely to be five years from now when the present legislation comes to an end. It was impossible in 1923; it is impossible in 1933. There would have been no objection to leaving the transitional provision of the 1923 Act still standing in view of possible eventualities, for if five years from now the necessity for them did not obtain they could easily have been repealed. It is, however, significant that the transitional provision, established 10 years ago by a Conservative Government, should to-day have been swept off the Statute Book in order that, in five years from now, every vestige of control over rents, whatever the circumstances may be, should come to an end. The Minister of Health explained that the only pur-
pose of this was that the situation should be reviewed in five years' time.
Parliament will be able to deal with its own situation in five years' time. The country does not need the present Government, who are grappling with the grave problems of the day, to think about a possible development five years from now. They may leave the country to take care of itself five years from now. The motive is not to permit the matter to be rediscussed five years from now. This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to end control of all rents, for all classes of houses, at the earliest practicable moment—five years from now. If they had dared to have done it three years from now they would have done it. If they had dared to have done it this year they would have done it. They have taken out one class, and for five years allowed another class to go. They have decontrolled the Class "A" houses.
If it be true—and this point has been put from both sides of this House— that in the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report, reflecting what might have been right at that time, it is nevertheless true, and we have insisted on it time and time again, that the economic situation to-day bears no relation whatever to the economic situation which obtained when the Marley Committee was deliberating and collecting evidence prior to the submission of their report. It is undoubtedly true that this Government started its career with a deflationary policy. If I were to pursue this, it would carry me outside the bounds of this discussion. The Government pursued a policy of keeping prices down and a policy of restriction and economy, and yet in this Bill, different from any other Measure that the Government have put before the House, they are pursuing a policy of permitting certain classes of people in this country to obtain more than they need have, and more than corresponding sections of the society are getting, as a rule. The Minister of Health said that I have invented a third class to-night. He said that everybody was either an owner or an occupier, but there are persons who are owner-occupiers and there are persons to whom the ownership of a house is a matter of small relative importance in business life. There are people who are engaged in industry who are not enjoying the
measure of protection which is now being given to the landlord, and, compared with many industrialists, the landlords of houses still to be protected are being put into a favourable position.
My last point is that the right hon. Gentleman spoke, at the end of his speech, in language which I completely failed to understand, and which, I am satisfied, all his colleagues on the Front Bench failed to understand. He spoke of restriction. He said that we should like to make rent restriction a permanent system, as a foundation for restrictions in other directions. It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to make this criticism against us. The whole of the economic policy of his Government has been a deliberate one of restriction. You may call it tariffs; you may call it regulation; you may say that these are quotas, but the whole policy of this Government has been one of restriction for one set of people. When it comes to restriction in the interests of the tenant, that is a doctrine that ought to be cast forth, and not supported. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman in his heart does not approve of any of the restrictions which the Government have imposed. He cannot do. He speaks, as I have said before, the language of a century ago. He believes in absolute freedom of contract. He cannot square that view either with this Bill as regards Class "C" houses, or with the policy of the Government.
We regard this Bill as a profoundly unsatisfactory Measure which is not in accordance with the needs of 1933 and of the period to which we immediately look forward. The one crumb of comfort that any of us can get out of this Bill is the fact that Class "C" houses are, for five years, to remain under control. So far as I am concerned, that is the only proposal in the Bill to which I attach any importance. As for the rest of the Bill, I think that it does not meet the needs of the time, and that it is bound to inflict hardship on large numbers of citizens who have been compelled to accept responsibilities, hardships and privations, in common with all those citizens who to-day are to continue to suffer in excess of their real responsibilities, as fellow citizens with us.

7.20 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and
the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are, of course, perfectly consistent in asking the House to reject the Third Reading of this Bill. They asked the House to reject the Second Reading. The hon. Member for Gorbals will not expect me to pursue him in that part of his speech which dealt with the unique and unhappy incident in which there were two shepherds, but no sheep to go into the pen, and it remains to be seen what happens on this occasion. Besides being consistent, they are of course logical. There must be no decontrol of any sort. Decontrol in any form whatever is, according to them, a retrograde step which must be resisted. Let us see how the matter actually stands.
The "A" houses which are being decontrolled represent about one-twelfth of the houses which are at present under control. On the other hand, the "C" houses represent no less than two-thirds of the houses at present under control. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the one crumb of comfort in this Bill for him was the perpetuation of control of the "C" houses for another five years. He calls it "a crumb of comfort." Apparently the theory of the hon. Member for Gorbals is that two-thirds of the whole loaf is not better than no bread, but that two-thirds must be rejected because we do not get the remaining third of the loaf. In terms of the human element, those two-thirds of the houses which are being controlled for another five years represent no less than 4,000,000 families, and to describe that as a crumb of comfort, and to reject that because you do not get the whole loaf, seems to me to show that logic is not the same thing as common sense.
The hon. Member for Gorbals again, not for the first time during the proceedings on this Bill, criticised us for not recontrolling those houses which had already been decontrolled during the last 10 years, and he made that one of the grounds on which he based his opposition to this Bill. I am not going to repeat all the arguments about that, but first of all let me remind hon. Members that it would be retrospective legislation of the most glaring kind and, secondly, that it would not penalise those who had profited by decontrol. It would penalise those who had paid the ordinary market price result-
ing from decontrol. I am not going to enlarge upon that part of the argument. What is far more important than that is, once let it be known that Parliament is prepared to go back upon the decontrol deliberately settled 10 years ago, and you absolutely destroy in one moment any hope of overtaking by private enterprise the housing shortage in those classes of houses where shortage still exists.
I can quite understand the (hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Bridgeton saying that they do not care what happens to private enterprise. Their millennium is the abolition of private enterprise in any case That millennium, however optimistic the hon. Members may be, is bound to take some little time to bring about, and during the progress towards the millennium, do not let us begin experimenting in such a way that we shall destroy private enterprise in one of the industries in which at the moment it happens to be most needed. It would be nothing less than sheer disaster if you frightened the building trade in such a way that they were not able or willing to continue their efforts to overtake the housing shortage. In that connection, I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). He said: "What proof is there that there is any revival in the building trade? Show me what the unemployment figures are in the building trade, and let us see where this proof is that private enterprise is willing to overtake the housing shortage." To quote figures of unemployment in connection with the building trade would not serve any useful purpose, because the relative figures are not sufficiently up-to-date, but I can give figures which I think will interest the House in this connection.
Figures have been got out with regard to the number of plans approved for building of all kinds in many of the larger towns and representing more than one-third of the population of this country. I am going to ask the House to compare two sets of figures for the total value in terms of millions of pounds of buildings for which plans were passed, in regard to the quarter ended March, 1932, and the corresponding figures for the quarter which has just ended. With regard to building of all classes, the figure has risen from £14,000,00) to £19,000,000;
with regard to dwelling houses, the figure has risen from £9,500,000 to £13,500,000 worth of dwelling houses in the current quarter. Without going into any more detail than that, I suggest that those figures are eloquent as showing that there is a determined effort on the part of the building trade to overtake the housing shortage.
The main principles upon which our Bill is founded have not seriously been assailed Since they appeared first of all in the Report of the Royal Commission, and Since they were amplified during the Second Reading Debate. They can be stated quite shortly as follows: We hold that there is no justification for the continuance of control where the houses under the control are a minority of that particular class of houses. Nor, on the other hand, is there any justification for the continuance of control when new building is proceeding at a faster rate than the decontrol in any given category of houses. Both those two situations are true of the "A" houses. The new houses which have been erected, and the houses decontrolled, exceed the houses still remaining controlled in that category by no less than 50 per cent. As the Royal Commission pointed out, by an artificial element of control on behalf of the minority in that category you are only making competition in the unrestricted part more severe. At the same time, in that group of houses, the new building has already very considerably overtaken the houses which have already been decontrolled. As hon. Members know, exactly the opposite is markedly the case in connection with the "C" class houses, and that is the reason for the different way in which

we are dealing with those two classes of houses.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) entered into a discussion as to whether this was a landlords' Bill or a tenants' Bill. It is neither. When I wound up the Debate on the Second Reading, I made the claim, I believe perfectly justly, that the Government were steering an even course between profiteering on the one hand and confiscation on the other. If in any particular class of houses premature decontrol is allowed to take place, it must be admitted that it is bound to result in some measure of profiteering. On the other hand, to maintain control a day longer than it is necessary with regard to any category of houses is nothing less than confiscation. We have tried to hold the measure equal between the two points of view, and I believe that we have done so fairly. People are inclined to say, and many people have said in the past, that this rent restriction legislation is a thing that no Government can afford to touch, that it is the sort of rock on which Governments may split. It may be that the National Government is in a somewhat stronger position in this regard than a mere party Government, but, however that may be, we have dealt with this matter in a perfectly clear-cut and perfectly decisive way, a way which is generally understood, and which I believe is generally approved in the country; and I now ask hon. Members to show in the Division Lobby that it is generally approved in this House.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 6.

Division No. 174.]
AYES.
[7.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Blindell, James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Borodale, Viscount
Cassels, James Dale


Albery, Irving James
Boulton, W. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Alien, Sir J. Standeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Appin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Christie, James Archibald


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Birks., Newb'y)
Conant, R. J. E.


Bank*, sir Reginald Mitchell
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cook, Thomas A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burghley, Lord
Cooke, Douglas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cooper, A. Duff


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Burnett, John George
Copeland, Ida


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Bernays, Robert
Butler, Richard Austen
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Butt, Sir Alfred
Craddock. Sir Reginald Henry


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Remer, John R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Renwick, Major Gustay A.


Cross, R. H.
Law, Sir Alfred
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Robinson, John Roland


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lees-Jones, John
Ross, Ronald D.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rothschild, James A. de


Denville, Alfred
Levy, Thomas
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Liddall, Walter S.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Edge, Sir William
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salt, Edward W.


Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scone, Lord


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leoin
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Magnay, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Slater, John


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Giett, Sir George Masterman
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gluckstein, Louie Halle
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Soper, Richard


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spens, William Patrick


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morgan, Robert H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stevenson, James


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morrison, William Shephard
Storey, Samuel


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hamilton, Sir H.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Munro, Patrick
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hanbury, Cecil
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hanley, Dennis A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Harbord, Arthur
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hartington, Marquess of
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hartland, George A.
Nunn, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
O'Connor, Terence James
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Train, John


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ormiston, Thomas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peat, Charles U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Heneage, Lieut Colonel Arthur p.
Penny, Sir George
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
White, Henry Graham


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Petherick, M.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hornby, Frank
Pickering, Ernest H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ads
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pike, Cecil F.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Power, Sir John Cecil
Withers, Sir John James


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
PowNail, Sir Assheton
Wolmer, Rt. Hon Viscount


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Womersley, Walter James


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsbotham, Herwald



Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rankin, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
and Major George Davies.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, David D. (County Down)





NOES.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Kirkwood, David
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) ACT, 1932.

7.40 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1933 dated the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved.
This Motion deals with a purely technical matter. The House will recall that, under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, the Treasury were empowered to levy on all or any imports from the Irish Free State duties up to 100 per cent. ad valorem, or their appropriate specific equivalent. The Treasury were further empowered to vary the Orders when once made. Under this power, two Orders were made in 1932. The first imposed duties of 20 per cent. ad valorem, and the second increased those duties from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. on animals for food and animals not for food. I hope the House will bear in mind the distinction between animals for food and animals not for food. On the 13th April, the first Order of this year was made, and it converted the 40 per cent. duties on live cattle for food into specific duties. The Order referred to in this Motion reaffirms that conversion, and adds dairy and breeding cattle, and also sheep and lambs at appropriate specific rates; so that now all animals, whether for food or not, are covered. In view of the comprehensive nature of this Order, which, as I say, includes all animals, whether for food or not, it will not be necessary to ask the House to approve of the first Order, for in this Order all the provisions with regard to cattle are consolidated.
The passage of this Order will relieve the Customs authorities of the duty of scrutinising every transaction in order to
ascertain its value, and will relieve importers of the necessity of making deposits pending the Customs inquiry. There is advantage, therefore, both for the Customs authorities and for the importer. The Treasury does not gain in revenue by the conversion from an ad valorem duty to a specific duty. The duty is kept at what is approximately the equivalent rate.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Does that apply to race horses?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, it applies to all animals, whether for food or not.

Sir H. SAMUEL: What would the duty be on a racehorse?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The duty on "other animals" is 40 per cent. ad valorem, as specified in the Order. In the case of a racehorse it would be necessary to ascertain its value. If its value were wrongly declared proper proceedings would be taken.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I submit that the Government are not treating the House fairly in this Order. This is a new Order. It is the third Order we have had. In July last, after the Irish Free State defaulted in payment of the land annuities, we had the first Order, which imposed a 20 per cent. duty ad valorem. In November we had another White Paper similar to this, and a new Order which increased the duty to 40 per cent. ad valorem. To-day we have the duties varied and another form. I cannot help feeling, from what has been said by the Financial Secretary on each occasion when we have discussed this matter before, that there is a purpose in this Order. Yesterday I put a question to the Financial Secretary and She gave me this answer:
The sums withheld by the Irish Free State Government amounted to £1,750,000 by the 15th July, 1932, when the Special Duties came into force. The sums withheld between that date and the present time amount to £3,200,000. The revenue collected up to the 6th May in respect of the duties imposed under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, and the Import Duties Act, 1932, on goods imported into the United Kingdom from the Irish
Free State was approximately £2,891,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1933; cols. 30 and 31, Vol. 278.]
So that we are "down" in the receipts from these duties by something like £2,000,000.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: £400,000 from the date of the first imposition.

Mr. LUNN: From the figures here it seems that we have to find nearly £2,000,000, and I want to know who is to find the money. The declaration has been made time and again by the Secretary of State for the Dominions that the British taxpayer would not be asked to pay a penny.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing against the import duties. The whole point of the Order is to alter the basis on which the duty should be charged. It does not go beyond that.

Mr. LUNN: If the decision is that there is no intention to secure a greater return from this method of levying the duties, I admit your point, Mr. Speaker, but I have before me the statements made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions with regard to these duties and the duties that have been imposed before, and I could quote those statements to show that the right hon. Gentleman said that the British taxpayer would not be called upon to pay anything. In our opinion it is folly to continue this business, and we can be no parties whatever to it when we know that a settlement could have been reached if the Government had sought it. The Secretary of State has been so clear and definite in his statements that the Government were going to see that this money was obtained from the Free State, that I felt we might debate the Order, as we have debated previous Orders, and prove that this change in the levying of the duties was for the purpose of securing an increased return from them. The other day the Minister of Agriculture in dealing with this matter said that the Irish Free State Government were giving bounties to their people, and that last week more cattle were imported into this country than in the corresponding week when the duties were first imposed. In other words, the Irish people are getting over the duties; they are meeting the situation. We have attack and counter-attack and the people
are having to pay. So far as I know it, the Opposition are against this principle in any shape or form. We believe it is economic war and we will be no parties to its continuance.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only question at issue is whether the duty shall be 40 per cent, ad valorem or shall be so much per head. If the hon. Member can show that so much a head on an animal is higher than 40 per cent, ad valorem he will be in order.

Mr. LUNN: I think it is the duty of the Financial Secretary and not of myself to answer that question. He ought to be able to say whether 40 per cent, is going to give us an amount equal to the fixed amount laid down here.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I said so most categorically and I say it again.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. MAXT0N: I rise with considerable trepidation to debate this matter after the Ruling that has been given. I have in my hand the White Paper which the Treasury has issued in support of the request that the House shall pass this new Order. I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, have had an opportunity of studying it with the same care as I have devoted to it. This White Paper recites the whole story from the beginning of this unsuccessful effort on the part of the British Government to collect certain debts from the Irish Government to individuals in this country for whom the Government feel that they have a certain measure of responsibility. Would I not be in order, in discussing this Order, to mention matters that are referred to in the recital of events in this White Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is true that there is a considerable Preamble to this Order. Sub-section (2) of Paragraph I raises the only point at issue.

Mr. MAXT0N: Do I understand that it has now become impossible at any stage for the House to question the wisdom of the Government's policy in dealing with this particular Irish problem? Am I to understand that from month to month and week to week the Government may continue adjusting the handling of this Irish question? The Financial Secretary tells us that this is
only a technical matter and that it relieves everyone concerned from a whole lot of difficulties. I proposed to deal with that point. Do I understand that the House is absolutely helpless, and that we cannot protest against the extension of what we believe to be a wrong policy?

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall certainly not give a Ruling of that kind, because when the proper opportunity arises the hon. Member can move what he likes in connection with the whole system. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that I cannot allow discussion on particular Orders, on some question that is not in those Orders. The only question that can be discussed now is what is contained in the particular Order before the House. That is all I am ruling.

Mr. MAXTON: I am bound to accept that Ruling, which I take it is the same Ruling as you would give with respect to any one of the Orders brought forward by the Import Duties Advisory Committee for discussion to-night.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only thing to be discussed is that which is in this particular Order.

Mr. MAXTON: And there can be no reference to the general policy involved? That puts me under a considerable handicap. The point at issue, I understand, is simply that certain difficulties have arisen in the handling of this business, apart from the failure to collect the total amount desired. The Treasury has decided that it would be more convenient for everyone concerned, exporter from Ireland and importer here, if a fixed figure were now placed in the Order instead of a percentage figure. It may be clear to the ordinary person, but it is not clear to me precisely what is being done when we find in Sub-section (2) of Paragraph 1 of the Order these words:
Provided that in any case where a duty chargeable on cattle, sheep or lambs under the said Schedule as so amended would exceed the value thereof, the said Schedule shall have effect as if there were substituted for that a duty of 100 per cent, of the value thereof.
This House origiNaily granted the Dominions Secretary and the Treasury power to impose a 20 per cent, charge on goods imported from Ireland as a means of collecting a debt. Then, a month or two ago, we gave them power to increase that duty to 40 per cent., because 20 per
cent, was not sufficient to raise the sum that we desired to get. Now I find this paragraph, which raises the 40 per cent, to 100 per cent. I know that that is limited by the fact that in the Schedule referred to definite figures are put down, but what is the purpose of putting it in at all? It means that, although the Financial Secretary to the Treasury assures us that this does not bring any more into the Treasury, it was impossible to lay down this Schedule of precise figures with the old 40 per cent, limitation, and that in order that they could produce this Schedule, the 40 per cent, upward limit had to be increased to a 100 per cent, upward limit. I am afraid that I do not know enough about the current prices of livestock and the differences in ages—
2 years old and upwards being cattle known as mIncers"—
I am afraid I am not sufficiently well up in the affairs of livestock to know the value of a mIncer. This is a subject on which we know, Mr. Speaker, that you have very special knowledge, and perhaps you might come to our aid on the technicalities, but I do not know the basic value of the "under 6 months old," I do not know the market value of the "6 months old but under 15 months old." I do not know the value of the mIncers or the non-mIncers at all, but I am driven to conclude, from the fact that it has been necessary to raise the 40 per cent, limit to 100 per cent, to accommodate the Treasury, that these rates in the Schedule represent a tax of somewhere between 40 and 100 per cent. The Financial Secretary says it is only technical, but actually we are giving the Government a third instalment of an increase—first 20 per cent., then 40 per cent., and now an unspecified figure, but in certain cases somewhere between 40 and 100 per cent.
I cannot see why, if the amount it increased, assuming that the volume of trade remains comparable to what it is, an additional amount will not come into the Treasury. We are giving in this Order power to increase the figure to 100 per cent., and I can understand how, some night late, when we are all thinking about getting home, a simple Motion might appear on the Order Paper that the figures in Schedule so-and-so, of Command Paper so-and-so, should be altered to so-and-so, and we should look at it and say: "That is £2 10s., instead of 35s. I
wonder what that means, but, after all, it does not matter, because the Minister says it is only technical, so we will all go home:" That is what we shall have done in two steps, the step we are taking tonight and the next one, each of them very trivial and not worth worrying about separately, but combined giving the Dominions Office and the Treasury the right to impose 100 per cent, tariffs on Irish agricultural products and livestock.
I wan to take up the Financial Secretary on his statement that this got rid of all the trouble of declaring values, either by the importer or the exporter. As a matter of fact, it starts a whole lot of new technical difficulties, on which already I have had representations from the importers interested in the West of Scotland. There is the technical problem now arising as to what age an animal is, and a whole herd has got to be held up at the wharves in Glasgow while, a veterinary surgeon goes round and weighs up whether the animal under observation is five months and three weeks or six months and one week old. I am sorry that Mr. Speaker has left the Chair, as I think he could have told us, but there are men who can give an expert look at the horns and hooves and say that the answer is two, three or four, as the case may be. I understand there are ways of doing it, but I am perfectly certain that it will be tremendously difficult, as we know it is in a whole lot of other branches of legislation, for even the greatest expert to deal with a marginal case. One can imagine the case of a "6 months old" [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a mIncer."]—1 am not afraid to face the mIncer. One can imagine a cow just leaving Ireland on its second birthday, being delayed by storms, as has occurred before, and, before it is landed on the docks of Glasgow, being two years and one week old. Does it come into the £3 category or the £6 category? There is a substantial difference.
I have put it jocularly, but the people concerned in Glasgow have already written to me and said that, if there were delays before, the delays involved in weighing up the ages and categories of cattle arriving at the docks at Glasgow, with veterinary surgeons experienced in this particular branch of work engaged in prolonged examinations, will be far greater, and there will also be greater annoyances to the persons in this country
who are engaged in a perfectly legitimate trade than were involved in the procedure that has been adopted up till now. Therefore, for these reasons, in addition to the other one, that I regard the whole policy towards Ireland on this matter as having been a profound mistake from the general political point of view and as having been proved from month to month to be a profound failure from the practical point of view; and having regard to the fact that this nation is making great protestations about tariff truces and about going into the World Economic Conference, so that we can harmonise the trade interests of the world—and this represents a very serious blot on our own escutcheon, that any nation gathered at the London Conference would be entitled to point out—for all these reasons, I propose to cast my vote against the acceptance of this Order by the House.

8.11 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I entirely agree with the last speaker that this is not a trivial matter to be thrust aside as merely a formality. On the advice of the Secretary of State for the Dominions we deliberately imposed tariffs in a particular form, and now we are asked to vary them. We are solemnly informed that, after experience, the method adopted of levying the tariffs ad valorem is inconvenient and has failed. What does this new procedure indicate? I cannot help feeling that it suggests that these new duties are no longer to be regarded as temporary, but that they are likely to last for a very long period. That is a very serious side of it, and I think we are entitled to have the Minister of Agriculture here to explain the significance of this proposal, because the agricultural industry is very seriously affected. I am informed by an hon. Member opposite that his constituency is adversely affected, and the agricultural interests are much concerned in the West of Scotland and Birkenhead, where there is a large number of people employed in handling Irish cattle and sending them to the Midlands for the fattening industry.
I do not think we should lightly, without information, but merely on the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this new method is more convenient and likely to bring in more revenue, pass this stage over. I know the Customs officials have had some ex-
perience, but I think the interests of the industry at the ports here and in the West of Scotland, and in the Midlands of this country, should have a little more enlightenment on how this proposal will affect them. I am concerned mainly, however, with the sinister fact that apparently now the Government are calmly going to sit down for the next two or three years in using this new procedure for raising revenue. Where we had temporary duties of a crude character and some sort of rough machinery for collecting revenue, it is now suggested that a new attempt should be made at a scientific tariff on agricultural produce and cattle from Ireland. It is apparently very carefully thought out, indicating that the Government now regard these duties as part of the permanent tariff system of this country, and they are providing permanent machinery for collecting revenue from Ireland in lieu of the annuities that were due to us. I have always recognised the justice of our claim. I have always felt that it is unfortunate that we should have this crude machinery of retaliation.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I do not think the hon. Baronet was present earlier when Mr. Speaker ruled that we cannot go into the merits of the original Order.

Sir P. HARRIS: I will not pursue the subject except to say that the recognition that it is necessary to introduce a new scientific system by the change over from one form of duty to another is an admission that the duties are to be permanent and not temporary.

8.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANOEMAN ALLEN: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Order is for greater advantage and convenience. It will certainly not mean any convenience or advantage to the traders of Birkenhead, because you are putting a duty per Captta on the cattle instead of a duty on weight. The result is that a much lighter weight of cattle is used in the North of England than in the South. It follows that the North of England is going to pay exactly the same tax on light weight beasts as other parts of the country will pay on heavy weight beasts. That will mean that more money is to be spent in tax per lb. butchered in the North than in
the South. This seems unfair discrimination which is not understood by the traders in Birkenhead. I hope the Government will clear up that point. I should also like to know whether it is going to have a result upon store cattle. If you buy light-weight cattle from Ireland and pay the same duty as on heavy cattle, store cattle will be fattened in Ireland instead of in England.

8.17 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It does not seem to us that we have had any adequate explanation of the reason for making this change. [Interruption.] I heard what it was. I came in directly I saw the hon. Gentleman's name up, but he had finished speaking. I understand he said this will make no difference to the charge of duty. It is a mere convenience and a rearrangement. But I see in the new Schedule that live sheep and lambs will both be charged at 12s. per head. It is not suggested that the price of sheep and lambs is the same. Obviously, they fetch different prices, sheep being more valuable than lambs. Therefore, this must be an alteration of taxation as regards sheep and Iambs. If the hon. Gentleman says that in the aggregate it will produce the same amount to the Treasury, that does not mean to say that the tax will not be increased above the 40 per cent. to which it has hitherto been limited and, indeed, it is apparent from the words of the proviso that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) read out, that provision has been made for that by putting in a limit of 100 per cent. So that the effect of this in a number of cases will be to increase the tax from 40 per cent. to some undefinable figure which is higher. We object to that increased taxation upon Irish beasts on the same grounds that we objected to the original taxation. We do not believe that this is the proper method, and these increased taxes which must inevitably be charged under the Schedule owing to the way in which it has been recommended and arranged are just as bad as the original taxes.
We deplore the theory that sooner or later we shall come to an arrangement with Ireland by means of increasing taxation because we believe that that is exactly contrary to the fact, and that the time has now come when increases
of taxation such as are here mentioned should be stopped. We have had a rise from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent, and now up to these ad valorem figures, which in some instances are much above 40 per cent., and we believe that every step that is taken up that staircase of rising taxation is inimical to the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I understand that President Roosevelt has to-night sent out a personal appeal to the heads of 44 great Governments of the world asking them particularly to do all that they can to make the World Economic Conference a success and to ease the difficulties of world trade. It seems to us that the imposition of these specific duties in the place of ad valorem, duties is making it more difficult for trade to be carried on between this country and Ireland and that that increased difficulty is exactly contrary to what the Government should be doing, especially in view of the fact that the World Economic Conference is about to open.

Mr. HOWARD: Not in the case of Ireland.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member thinks that Ireland should be kept out of the World Economic Conference, but I understand that she is attending the World Economic Conference, and an invitation has been sent to her by this Government to attend it, and she is, as far as I know, still within the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. HOWARD: Not in spirit.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the time has come when, whatever the history of the past may be, a Sincere effort should be made to meet the Irish people so as to come to some agreement upon all the matters that are outstanding between us. Probably every one feels that it would be far better if we could come to some arrangement of that sort.

Mr. HOWARD: Let them start.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has been led away by the interruption further than he intended.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I was speaking on the point that this specific duty in my view makes it more difficult to trade between Ireland and England, and I am putting it that this increase of difficulty of trading between the two countries is merely another step in the progressive increase in difficulties which we have witnessed ever Since the difficulties with Ireland first started. We certainly oppose any Order of this sort, and we desire to register our dissent from the policy of the Government, which seems to be not to enter into conciliation with the Irish people but rather to continue the economic warfare, which we believe is and can be no solution of the difficulty and which we feel must prejudice the position both of this country and of Ireland at the World Economic Conference.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 223: Noes, 40.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[8.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crossley, A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eurghley, Lord
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Burnett, John George
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Calne. G. R. Hall-
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Dickie, John P.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Catsels, James Date
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Edge, Sir William


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Elmley, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Christie, James Archibald
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Clayton. Dr. George C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Conant, R. J. E.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cook, Thomas A.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bernays, Robert
Cooke, Douglas
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Copeland, Ida
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin


Blindell, James
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gault, Lieut, Col. A. Hamilton


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gibson, Charles Granville


Broadbent, Colonel John
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cross, R. H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mabane, William
Rutherford. John (Edmonton)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Balsetlaw)
Salt, Edward W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McKie, John Hamilton
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwin)


Greene. William P. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Scone, Lord


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hanbury, Cecil
Morgan, Robert H.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Slater, John


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Harbord, Arthur
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hartland, George A.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Soper, Richard


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nunn, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Connor, Terence James
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hore-Belisha, Lesile
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hornby, Frank
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stevenson, James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ormiston, Thomas
Strauss, Edward A.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peat, Charles U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Petherick, M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
PowNail, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Rankin, Robert
Wells. Sydney Richard


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Held, David D. (County Down)
White, Henry Graham


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Remer, John R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, John Roland
Withers, Sir John James


Levy, Thomas
Ropner, Colonel L.
Womersley, Walter James


Liddall, Walter S.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross, Ronald D.



Llewellin, Major John J.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sir Victor Warrender and Dr.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Runge, Norah Cecil
Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.


Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan),
Maxton, James
Graham.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James

Resolved,

"That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1933, dated the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and
thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."

IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.

8.32 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved.
I rise to move the first of four Orders under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with the consent of the House, I suggest a general discussion of the four Orders, leaving the House free to take a separate decision, should they so wish, on any one of the Orders as they arise. It will probably be convenient if we follow the established practice, and I make a short explanatory statement of the four Orders taken together. These four Orders have, as a net result, the achievement of four different objects.? The duties are increased on peat products, rubber footwear, linseed oil, potatoes, pottery and clay products, fabric gloves and baskets. There is a specific duty on yeast, and a duty on buttons, and certain ships and vessels are exempted from additional duty. The question may be raised as to the propriety of these duties being imposed now having regard to the Tariff Truce announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. The House is familiar with the position then announced, but it is convenient to say that Order No. 4 is dated 26th April; Order No. 5, 27th April; Order No. 6, 27th April; Order No. 8, 28th April. The Committee's recommendations to which these Orders relate are dated at Various times between January and April of this year.
I will deal with the Orders in chronological order. No. 4, which comes first, need not delay the House for more than a few seconds. Buttons came under a Safeguarding Duty under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1928. As the House will remember, that Safeguarding Duty was for five years. It came to an end on the 27th April, 1933, when the Safeguarding Duty was 33⅓ per cent. Immediately the Safeguarding Duty came to an end the articles automatically came under the
Import Duties Act, 1932, for a 10 per cent, ad valorem duty, and the Committee now recommend the addition to that 10 per cent, of an ad valorem duty of 22⅓ per cent., leaving the duty precisely as it was before, namely 33⅓ per cent. I have figures relating to the importation of buttons which share the home market, and the figures of employment, but inasmuch as the duty is maintained at precisely the same level as before, I do not propose, unless questions are raised on it, to go into matters of detail further.
Order No. 5 deals with peat, rubber footwear and ships. First, with regard to peat. Peat was subject to a 10 per cent, duty, and the proposal now is that that duty shall be increased to 20 per cent. This will include additional duties on preparations of peat used in horticulture, agriculture, poultry and on sports' tracks. The market for peat is expanding. There are very large quantities of peat in the United Kingdom, and it is hoped that British producers will obtain a larger share of the market. It is difficult to obtain separate statistics with regard to employment in the trade, but the trade is not very extensive. That brings me to the duty on rubber footwear. I imagine that that is one of the duties to which the House will desire to give a little attention. The proposal is for a specific duty per pair on the different classes of rubber boots, rubber shoes and footwear generally, and it is imposed primarily because of the extraordinary importations that have come from Japan. It is probably well within the knowledge of the House that there has been a perfect flood of importations at extremely low prices and that the whole of the country has been literally flooded with these rubber footwear importations. The figures are very striking. Rubber footwear comes from Germany, Czechoslovakia, the United States, Canada and other countries. Under the heading of "other countries" 68 per cent, of the whole comes from Japan. The remainder consists of plimsolls from Poland, and small quantities from Spain and Belgium. The importations have grown at a tremendous rate. The multiplication table is quite unable to keep pace with the alteration in the figures.
The comment which the House will probably desire to make is not against the severity of the duties, which it will probably be very willing to affirm, but whether the imposition of these extremely high duties is not likely to cause some hardship to British dealers in these particular articles. I sympathise with the point of view that desires that matter clearly to be investigated, but the Import Duties Advisory Committee had already announced that, if this flood of importations continued, further and increased duties would be recommended. I submit that in case of a warning of that kind the trade in these articles coming from Japan, under conditions which make it impossible for Western countries to compete with them, must have been a trade in which everybody taking part had perfectly clear warning that they were from day to day living on the edge of a precipice, and that there might be some recommendation for a further increase in the duty. That is exactly what has happened. On the 27th June, 1932, a Press notice was issued by the Import Duties Advisory Committee that application had been made for increased duties in respect of this commodity, and when an increased duty was proposed the committee, in the final paragraph of their report, said:
Should the present abnormal competitive conditions continue we shall be prepared to reconsider the matter.
The Committee have had the position of the importations under close observation Since their recommendation, and on the 27th March last they recommended new duties, which came into operation on the 2nd May. I might add that under our English law, under the Finance Act, 1901, where a new Customs Duty is imposed after the date of a contract of sale, the new duty is for buyer's account. That is the effect of the Finance Act, 1901, Section 10 (1). The United Kingdom output of rubber footwear is very considerable, and the House will be glad to know that, according to the Ministry of Labour's statistics, the unemployment in the rubber industry has decreased quite considerably between September, 1931, and April, 1933. The total number of operatives in the rubber trade generally in September, 1931, was 67,470, and the percentage of unemployment was 20. In April, 1933, the comparative figures were: total number of
insured persons employed, 64,100; percentage of unemployment, 17.5, as distinct from 20 per cent, in 1931. The Committee's recommendation with regard to rubber footwear is one which can be commended very cordially to the House.
The next article dealt with in Order No. 5 is ships, and it is recommended that they cease to be chargeable with the additional duty. They are for the moment subject to a duty as being goods manufactured from metals and come under the general 20 per cent, description. The Import Duties Advisory Committee recommend that these various ships, boats, etc., which are imported into this country should be exempt from additional duty and should not come under the 20 per cent, category. Seagoing ships and vessels are not goods, and are therefore not affected. If the House approves the recommendation, craft of all kind, dredgers, barges, tugs, launches and vessels used in estuaries can come in without being liable to pay additional duty. The gross tonnage affected is relatively small and the total value in any year is slight. In the year 1932 the total value of boats imported was £26,000 and the gross tonnage a little under 3,000.
We pass now to Order No. 6, which deals with linseed oil. This Order has some special interest to the House. It is the first Order under the Ottawa Agreements Act. It is the first recommendation made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in pursuance of the Ottawa Agreements Act, Section 1 (5). The Ottawa Agreements Act placed a duty of 10 per cent, on linseed, which had formerly been on the Free List, and increased the general ad valorem duty on linseed oil from 10 to 15 per cent. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have found that the new duty on linseed oil is insufficient as a set-off to the extra cost occasioned by the new duty on seed. The products of seed-crushing are oil and oil-cake, three tons of oil and seven tons of cake from every 10 tons of seed. Oilcake is in competition with other forms of cattle food and thus the price cannot rise; consequently, the whole of the increased cost has, in practice, to be put upon the oil. It is not sufficient merely to raise the cost of imported linseed oil, and the Advisory Committee for the
reasons set out in full in the White Paper, the Additional Import Duties No. 6 Order, suggest the fixing of the duty on a specific basis. The new duty is at such a rate as will, with the 15 per cent. ad valorem duty, amount to £3 10s. per ton. On the average value that £3 10s. per ton amounts to an ad valorem duty of approximately 25 per cent.
When the matter of linseed was before the House in connection with the Ottawa Agreements Act, I was pressed by Members interested in the trades which use linseed oil as a raw material to make some statement with regard to drawbacks, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that the drawback system for articles made from linseed oil will be published and put into operation within the next few days. It has taken a little time to think out because the number of articles of which linseed oil is a raw material is very considerable, and it has been necessary to work out a most detailed drawback scheme. That scheme is now ready and will be published within the next few days.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate the scope of this drawback, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday in answer to a question referred to linoleum. Are we to understand that it refers to the general class of objects in which linseed oil enters, as far as exports are concerned?

Dr. BURGIN: It may be a sufficient answer at the moment to say that it has a wider scope than linoleum.

Mr. LAWSON: Does it mean that the interests concerned have now come to an arrangement?

Dr. BURGIN: That is probably a fair inference. I admit that I was reading the exact words—a drawback scheme for articles made from linseed oil will be both published and put into operation in a few days. My statement was intended to prevent there being any alarm on the part of users of linseed oil against an increase of the duty from 15 per cent, to what is equivalent to a 25 per cent, duty, and amounting to £3 10s. per ton. If hon. Members have any further points to put I will deal with them later. For the moment that is, I think, a description
which the House desires of the way in which this increased duty on linseed oil is to be applied.
The next Order is No. 8. I have dealt with Orders No. 4, 5 and 6. For the information of the House I may say that Order No. 7 is an Order reducing duties in accordance with the Trade Agreement with Germany and, therefore, does not require an affirmative resolution by the House. Order No. 8 deals again with a large number of articles—yeast, pottery, baskets, fabric gloves, and potatoes, and I understand that there will be some discussion on at least one of these miscellaneous articles. Let me see how far an explanation will assist the House in any discussion which may naturally and properly arise. Yeast comes from several countries, largely from Holland. The suggestion is such a rate of duty as will, with the general ad valorem duty, amount to 4s. per cwt. Yeast is essential for the production of bread, and the importance of maintaining domestic supplies is obvious. The Import Duties Advisory Committee were impressed by the efficient methods of production and distribution of home manufacturers, and were satisfied that there was 100m for considerable expansion. Production in this country of recent years has: been affected by the importation of large quantities of inferior quality at low prices. It is believed that a moderate duty, while giving the home producers of yeast an increased share of the home market, will not increase the price of home-produced yeast and will not mean any increase in the price of bread. The duty should check the influx of inferior grades of yeast and afford a definite preference for the higher grade quality. The incidence of the duty will vary with origin. On Danish yeast, which is the best, it will amount to 10 per cent.;. on German yeast, the duty will be about 13 per cent. I have for the convenience of the House, if they are wanted, the whole of the particulars with regard to imports for the last few years.
The next item—I must, apologise for taking time by going through so many of these separate subjects—is pottery and clay products. There are recommendations for a duty on a large number of these different products of pottery and clay. They are mostly with regard to
tiles. The new Order leaves unaltered the duty on roofing tiles, quarry, and street-paving tiles, drain pipes, angles and other similar articles, but imposes increased duties on three classes of pottery, glazed wall and glazed hearth tiles, sanitary ware, and articles of a description commonly known as "used for domestic purposes." The increases of the duty are shown in the White Paper and vary from 5 to 20 per cent., according to the nature of the article. Particulars of importations are available in detail. These come mostly from Germany and Holland, but again I must point out that there has been a marked increase from Japan. Let me give the House two figures. From 1927 to 1931 Japanese imports of translucent pottery increased from 6,000 cwts. to 14,000 cwts. In the case of general earthenware the importations in 1927 from Japan were 4,700 cwts., and in 1931 9,500 cwts. The increase is one of the facts which has induced the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make this recommendation.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it expected that this increase in duty will stop abnormal importation from Japan?

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member is asking me whether this increase in duty represents the Government's policy towards Japanese imports the answer is in the negative. This is a recommendation made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee upon the application of the pottery trade for a measure of interim protection which it lies within the power of the Committee to give. The general question of Japanese imports is of course an entirely different matter.

Sir B. PETO: In the remarkable figures which the hon. Gentleman gave just now did he make it clear that the 1927 figures were cwts. and not tons?

Dr. BURGIN: If I gave the figures wrongly, I apologise to the House. There are two different classes of pottery. One is translucent pottery in regard to which the 1927 figure is 6,000 cwts. and the 1931 figure 14,000 cwts. In the case of general earthenware the figure in 1927 was 4,700 cwts. and in 1931, as I thought I had made clear, 9,500 cwts. I next have to deal with baskets which can hardly be described as an "article" because there is such an infinite variety of them. There are three main groups, containers, trade
baskets and fancy baskets. Containers are being made in a very large degree by British makers. Trade baskets and fancy baskets are, to a large extent, made by blind and disabled people. There is a very substantial home production in spite of keen foreign competition. I have the Census of Production figures, from which it appears that quite a large percentage of the total home production came from small firms, employing less than 10 persons each. It is a trade particularly capable of being dealt with in a country which produces osiers and the other raw materials. As to the countries from which baskets chiefly come, vegetable containers come from Holland, trade baskets from Belgium and fancy baskets from Germany. The figures of imports are available and I do not think the House will delay in approving an increase of duty from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent.
That brings me to the two contentious subjects of fabric gloves and potatoes. Fabric gloves have provided the subject-matter of many discussions in this House and, as the House knows full well, we have to consider in this connection the yarn which is the product of Lancashire, the fabric which is very often made abroad, from which the gloves are constructed, and the glove making industry in this country which has been sorely hit by all kinds of competition. The suggestion of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is an increase of the duty upon fabric gloves from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. The contest is not so much as to whether the fabric glove industry deserves assistance —which seems to be regarded either as accepted or as a matter of lesser account —but as to whether in granting assistance to this home industry we are doing any injury to Lancashire. That, of course, is a matter on which the two sides of the case were put before the Committee. Some complaint is raised by Lancashire that they were not allowed to repeat the very full presentation of their case made in the first instance to the Committee. The actual words of the recommendation must be referred to:
It has not been found possible to devise an administratively practicable scheme for reducing the duty on glove fabric.
This was the way in which the Committee desired to handle the case. In view of the great lack of orders experienced by what is a rural industry, to which we
are particularly desirous of giving help the Committee, seeing no reason to change their broad general outlook, have felt that this industry must be given some further assistance. The duty now proposed is not very heavy and it is not one which in the opinion of the Committee will adversely affect Lancashire. The Committee take the view that in making a recommendation of this kind they are harming no industry and helping one which they are desirous of assisting. The unemployment figures are not available separately for this trade but it is estimated that there are only some 500 or 600 operatives employed as compared with 1,200 a year ago.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it has not been found possible to devise an administratively practicable scheme for reducing the duty on glove fabric?

Dr. BURGIN: That is the statement of the Committee whose particular task this was. If it is beyond the ability of the Committee, with their complete independence and detachment, and all the skilled assistance which they have, I do not think it likely that the House will be able to point to a method by which this could easily be achieved. That brings me to the final subject of the duty on potatoes. The recommendations with regard to potatoes are expressed in the form beloved of Parliamentary draftsmen which requires a great deal of reading. There seem to be no less than six different rates of duty on potatoes and the Order deals with every month of the year. I have taken the trouble to attempt to reduce all this super-classification to two simple statements which I think will make the position clear to the House. The recommendation with regard to potatoes tries to achieve two objects, one permanent and the other temporary. The permanent object is this. Under the duties at present in force potatoes have a duty on them of £4 13s. 4d. per ton until 30th June, but on 1st July the duty becomes £l per ton on all potatoes. It was felt that that was an extremely steep descent from £4 13s. 4d. on the night of 30th June to £l on the morning of 1st July. The Committee have recommended therefore as a permanent measure that in the months of July and August potatoes shall
carry a duty of £2 and only at the end of August will the duty fall to £l. So you have a duty of £4 13s. 4d. until 30th June, £2 in July and August, and thereafter £l. That is one part of the recommendations.

Mr. HASLAM: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of potatoes, may I point out that the Committee recommends that the additions to the duties specified in the statement should be imposed "for this season." May I ask whether the duties specified here come to an end on the latest date mentioned, namely, 31st October?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member interrupted me when I had finished the first half of a double-barrelled statement. I was trying to reduce this complex question of potatoes to simple proportions. The permanent duty is merely to stop the fall from £4 13s. 4d. per ton. That is permanent and is not limited to this season. There is a special recommendation for the other half of the programme dealing with old potatoes. For this season only old potatoes, until the 30th June, are to have an extra £1 a ton. The reason is that there are tremendous stocks of old potatoes still unsold, and in order to give growers the possibility of starting with a new season's crop without being completely glutted with the old, there is an increased import duty of £1 a ton upon old potatoes for this season only up to 30th June. That is a clear analysis of the potato recommendation, and, in spite of the six classifications and the elaborate series of duties, I am assured that that is the whole purport of this potato recommendation. I have had to take the House over these four Orders and a very wide series of articles, and I have attempted to give the House the information which it has shown by previous experience that it desires.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The House will appreciate the very concise and complete way in which the Minister has defined the objects of these Orders. He said that there were four different objects to be attained by the four Orders, but I am not sure that I have found my feet in the controvercy and I hope that he will ovErieok any mistakes that I make. These Orders cover an extraordinary range of subjects. They are made for
the imposition of additional rates of duties on the general tariff which has been operative for a considerable time Since the 1932 Act came into force. For example, in Order No. 4, a 10 per cent, duty having been charged upon buttons, the recommendation of the committee is that an additional duty of 23⅓ per cent. should be added, making 33⅓ per cent, in all. We should like to know much more before the Debate closes as to the reason why these buttons are to be subject to an additional duty. We were given figures to show that this is a very small trade and that it will not affect employment in a very large way should the object of the additional duties be obtained, because the volume of business in buttons is not very large and the amount of employment cannot therefore be very important. I should like to know whether the description in the Order covers all buttons. The description is:
Buttons, whether finished or unfinished, of a description commonly used for the fastening or decorating of wEarlng apparel or household linen, not being buttons forming part of any other article.
Are these the ordinary buttons imported on small cards and sold in little lots of half a dozen or a dozen, or are they such as are sold in bulk? Are they consignments produced abroad and sold in bulk for ordinary use on clothing; are they simply the small buttons that may come in for repair work and making good the wear and tear of ordinary wEarlng apparel; or are they the main stock of buttons used in the manufacture of clothing? Whatever merits these Orders may have, and whatever effect they may have on employment we have to keep the consumer in mind, and while the "consumer of buttons" may not be an appropriate term there is a very large use for buttons, and they do play a very important part in the economy of nations. The next Order, No. 5, is apt to be confusing because we fail to understand why this conglomeration of duties should be introduced to the confusion of the House in the same Order. First we have a recommendation dealing with peat moss, peat moss litter, dust or mould, granulated peat and peat fuel or tailings. All these terms are unknown to me. I confess to great ignorance of gardening and horticulture, but probably all these terms are familiar to those people who have gardens. No information is given regarding the amount of peat moss and
the country from which it is imported. I understand that in Ireland, the country to which we paid a visit in the last Debate, there is an enormous supply of peat and peat moss. Do these duties cover importations from Ireland, or only from Continental countries where peat also is found?
We would like to know a little more as to the commercial and financial effect of this new duty. On the same Order we have the new additional duties on rubber shoes. Here a protest should be entered because this new duty has given rise to a very large measure of complaint. Correspondence has come to every Member of the House and it seems to manifest a general grievance against the incidence and the amount of this new duty. Here we are dealing with articles of daily use and of growing use among the poorer people. With great joy we find that country children, in particular those who have to traverse badly constructed roads and muddy lanes on the way to school each day, are making growing use of rubber footwear. It has been brought within reach of people with small incomes and it has become a great comfort and a safeguard to health, especially to the younger generation. This additional duty will give some satisfaction to the makers of rubber boots and shoes in this country, but it means an enormous addition to the cost of footwear for the poor children of the working classes, for whom there is no corresponding advantage in any of these Orders.
It is a prohibitive duty, and a large number of children will be deprived of their rubber shoes and compelled to put up with leaky footwear and badly-made leather shoes letting in the wet. They will be unable to go to school dry shod and to return in comfort. It is a most unjust imposition, and a great injustice in particular to the younger generation, whose health has been keeping up marvellously in these difficult days of great financial (stringency in the home. This is a direct attack upon the health of the children, which has been maintained, partly, by the provision of better footwear. I. find that the list of these rubber shoes includes shoes covering the ankle, those very neat, smart, shoes that we see these days, sometimes reaching almost to the knee. They are to become liable to
an additional duty of 2s. each, which is 4s. a pair. I do not know the rate of wear of these shoes, but supposing a child wears out only one pair in a season, that means 4s. extra to be paid. I find that even smaller shoes are to be charged a duty at the rate of 1s. 6d. a pair, and goloshes have to bear an increase of 10d. or 1s. a pair. I hope the House will refuse to endorse these recommendations, and that the Order already made will be rescinded in the interests of the children and the others of whom I have spoken.
Next we come to the Order excluding from duty materials used in the construction of ships. I am not quite certain, but I gathered from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that they are to come in absolutely free, or that there is to be only the 10 per cent. general tariff. One wonders why that is so. If there is any virtue in putting an additional duty on buttons in order to provide employment, why remove the duty in this case having regard to the enormous amount of unemployment in the shipbuilding industry? It is inconsistent to take that course in the case of an industry where unemployment is greatest and where whole communities are in a state of poverty and unprecedented distress. But shipbuilding materials are to come in free for some reason which was too abstruse for me to follow when the Minister explained the position to the House. In the case of Order No. 6 the Minister explained that linseed oil, which was taxed previously at a low rate, is now to carry an additional duty. It is not to be a percentage rate ad valorem duty, but such additional rate as will bring the duty up to £3 10s. a ton. The Minister said that linseed was used mainly in the manufacture of linoleum and paints and varnishes. I do not know whether he expects very much additional employment in those trades. He gave no estimate of the additional number of people whom he expected would find employment on account of this duty.
We come now to Order No. 8. Here, again, there is cause for complaint, because an additional duty is to be put on yeast. Yeast is a commodity which we hardly ever meet with nowadays., It finds its way into bread, but, unfortunately, bread is now mainly produced in large bakehouses. People get their bread made for them, and yeast is almost unknown
to the ordinary housewife, who does not make her own bread to the extent as formerly, though bread making at home is still carried on in the country districts. The making of bread at home was almost a universal custom in my boyhood. On many occasions I have gone to buy a pennyworth of yeast—sometimes three-halfpenceworth, which was sufficient for a rather formidable baking. Every increase in the cost of yeast means an increase in the cost of making bread. One by one articles which enter into the cost of living are being enhanced in price by the imposition of these duties, and the cost of living is thus pushed up by subterranean methods which escape the notice of the ordinary man in the street. In the last year or two the. Government have been responsible for considerable additions to the cost of living.

Mr. HOWARD: Oh!

Mr. GRENFELL: It would be equally true if I said there would have been a considerable reduction in the cost of living had the Government not imposed these duties, which are put on in such a way that they pass unnoticed by the housewife and others responsible for the family budget. Here there is an addition to the cost of bread making, which must be paid by the consumers of bread, and that means by everyone in the country. Then we come to the Order dealing with baskets. I have every sympathy with blind people, who are very largely engaged in this trade, still mainly carried on by hand, but we believe that this Protection cannot help even blind people, because they form part of the whole community which must be injured by this system of Protection. Whatever small advantages come direct to the blind people, they will lose in the general loss which the community suffers owing to Measures of this kind.
In the case of potteryware we are dealing with articles which enter very largely into the cost of house building. The articles described in Order 8 are mainly forms of pottery used in building—roofing tiles, street paving tiles, glazed wall and glazed hearth tiles, drain pipes, angle bends, elbows and traps and sanitary wear. The additional duty on these commodities runs to an average of about 20 per cent., and the general duty will now
stand at a level varying from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent.—a very high charge. As we have in this country the raw material for making all these kinds of pottery, why is it necessary to have this very high rate of duty against foreign competitors? With the raw materials existing in this country, as anywhere else, in such variety and quality, one wonders whether the Government are satisfied that this is not-cloaking inefficiency? We are at a disadvantage in referring to a committee which sits somewhere away from the world of man, where very few people can gain entry, and no one knows what evidence is submitted to them or what case is made out by interested parties. One asks oneself why it is necessary to protect tiles and drainpipes to the extent of 30 per cent, when one has been abroad and seen the conditions under which similar manufactures are carried on? I am afraid that this is a direct Incentive to inefficiency, and I hope the Minister will satisfy us on that point before we leave this Order.
Then we come to fabric gloves on which I shall not say much, because there are hon. Members of this House who are panting for an opportunity to express their views with expert knowledge. I have listened to many Debates on fabric gloves, and I never could understand the ramifications of that industry. I knew in a general way that there were two sets of people concerned, those concerned with the production of the raw materials in this country who complained of the duties and those who are manufacturing gloves from raw materials who wanted higher duties. We stand here to-night protesting against every single item in these Orders. We shall vote against every single recommendation made and every single Order issued. We believe that this method of giving assistance to industry will, in the end, be detrimental to the real interests of industry itself, and that, in the end, it will not add to the volume of employment or improve conditions in this country. We believe that the operation of these Orders will mean an enhanced price to many of these articles of daily consumption. The effect will be to add unduly to the cost of living of the working people whose wages are already too low, and that will result in reduced purchasing power and in that way nullify any good effects which might come from the direct influence of the Orders themselves.

9.28 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I should like, in the first place, to associate myself with two things which fell from the hon. Member who has just sat down, firstly, his expression of admiration for and gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this subject for his very clear exposition of these complicated Orders, and, secondly, the hon. Member's general declaration of opposition to the whole policy which they embody. The House has heard me before on that general theme, and I do not propose now, when I know a great number of Members wish to speak, to range over the whole field, more particularly because there is one of these Orders which I have satisfied myself will do an exceptional measure of injustice to the traders concerned and real injury to an important section of the consumers of the country.
The Order I refer to is that relating to rubber footwear. I should like briefly to remind the House, in the first place, what is the history of the case. Rubber footwear came under the provisions of the Import Duties Act and a 10 per cent, duty was imposed when that Act was passed. Then there was a recommendation at the beginning of last summer by the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the duty should be raised to 20 per cent., and that Order was duly passed by this House. Then in September of last year application was made by the British manufacturers of rubber footwear for a higher duty, but counter representations were made by the importers concerned, and so successful were these representations and so strongly did they impress the Import Duties Advisory Committee that whereas the manufacturers had asked for a duty of 50 per cent, ad valorem, or 6d. per pair, whichever was the greater, to be added to the 20 per cent, ad valorem duty already imposed, the committee recommended a specific duty of only 2d. per pair in the case of shoes and 3d. per pair in the case of boots, to be added to the 20 per cent. Now, only seven months after, without warning to the importers and merchants concerned, this enormous addition to the duties which we are discussing to-night is made. I said it had been done without warning, although the House will remember that the Parliamentary Secre-
tary, in his opening speech, argued clearly that ample warning was given. He based that statement on what was said by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in making their recommendation in September of last year. They then said:
Should the present abnormal competitive conditions continue we shall be prepared to consider the matter.
But how is the trader who is making contracts and entering into binding obligations to judge what abnormal competitive conditions are, and whether in fact they are continuing? If you look back over a series of years it is true that importations from Japan have increased, but a further remarkable fact is that they have increased entirely at the expense of other foreign countries and not at the expense of the British manufacturer— mainly at the expense of Belgium and Czechoslovakia. The figures show that the increase in importations from Japan corresponds almost exactly to the decrease in importations from these other foreign countries. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to other cases in which imports from Japan had increased, and he presented to the House, perhaps unconsciously, a picture of Britain being overwhelmed by imports from Japan with a tremendous balance of adverse trade. As a matter of fact, that is very far from being a true picture. I see hon. Members representing Lancashire sitting opposite, and I know that those industries have suffered. But if you take the whole picture it is no longer true. If you take the figures for 1931—the statistical abstract for 1932 is not available—you will find that the exports to Japan amounted to £6,186,000 whereas the imports from Japan amounted to £6,952,000. If you remember that the export figures are f.o.b. and the import figures are c.i.f., you will see that there is almost an exact balance of trade between Japan and this country. Therefore, it is not the case that we are being completely flooded by Japanese goods.
In the particular case of rubber footwear, the increase in the imports from Japan is in almost exact ratio to the decrease in the imports from other countries. The absolute figures have shown a steady decrease year by year Since 1930. In 1930, there were 1,244 thousand dozen pairs imported from all countries.
In 1931 they fell to 1,173 thousand dozen pairs, and last year the figure fell to 991 thousand dozen pairs. So much for the trend of imports during the last three years. But the House may say, the Committee bases its recommendation upon what has happened Since it published its last recommendation in September of last year, and in fact, they say in the White Paper that we are now discussing that the rates imposed in September of last year have completely failed to check the flood of imports. I shall be able to show clearly to the House that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have made an enormous error in drawing that conclusion from figures which are available at the present time.
If you take the figures of imports for the first four months of this year and compare them with the figures for the first four months of last year, you will find, although there is an enormous decrease in the imports as compared with 1930 and 1931, that there is an almost imperceptible increase, that is from 382 thousand dozen pairs to 389 thousand dozen pairs, comparing the imports for the first four months of this year with those for the first four months of last year. If those figures prove anything— and this is my point—those goods that were imported in the first four months of this year, and certainly in the first three months, were ordered long before the new rates of duty became operative in November. The orders took effect in November of last year, and therefore the importations in the first four month:; of this year have been quite unaffected by the action of the Committee last autumn. The rates of duty which were enacted last autumn have had no effect upon the imports in the first four months of this year, because any goods that came in during those four months were ordered long before those rates came into operation. It would be the figures for June, July and August which would show the effect of the rates of duty which were enacted in. the autumn of last year.
My submission to the House is that the Advisory Committee, in making this recommendation, have acted without giving time for the effect of their recommendations of last year to be manifest. If you take the figures for the most recent period, that is to say for April, they entirely support the contention which I am now putting before the House. If you
take the figures for April, 1931, the amount is 169 thousand dozen pairs, for 1932 the figure was 141 thousand dozen pairs and for this April, only 106 thousand dozen pairs, showing clearly that the duties are now beginning to take their effect, just at the moment when the Advisory Committee rushes prematurely on to the scene, and puts up this recommendation.

Mr. PIKE: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pay due regard to the especially good weather experienced in January and February, and its likely effect upon forward orders?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not see what that has to do with it. The hon. Member heard what I was saying. I have already pointed out that, as regards January, February, and March, the Orders could not possibly have been affected by the rates of duty imposed in November, or by the warning issued by the Advisory Committee and that April would be the very first month which could be affected in any degree by the rates of duty imposed in November. What, therefore, does the warning, to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred, amount to? What could the importer have done to avert the prospect of loss, by which he is faced in the recommendations which we are discussing now? What does the word "reconsider" mean? When the Advisory Committee said in September of last year that if these abnormal importations did not cease, they would reconsider them, "reconsider" must have meant consultation. Under the Import Duties Act, it is laid down that the Advisory Committee must consider the interests of the consuming trade. How can they consider those interests if they do not take the consuming trade into consultation? The argument which I have put before the House, showing how the importations could not possibly have been affected in the first four months of this year—in the first three months at any rate—by the rates of duty imposed in November of last year, shows clearly that the Advisory Committee have acted without any appreciation of the effect upon the trade which is carried on by those people.
I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us
whether Since November there has been a fresh application by the British manufacturers. Either there has been an application, or there has not. If there has been such an application, then the Advisory Committee should have given the importers an opportunity of stating their case. They have not. I want to make that clear. The importers have had no opportunity Since November last, of stating their case to the Advisory Committee. They were not consulted before the Advisory Committee recommended the increase which we are discussing this evening. Either the manufacturers have made a fresh application, in which case the importers ought to have the opportunity of discussing it with the Advisory Committee, or they have made no such application, from which it would not appear that there is any such crisis in the affairs of the trade as would justify the imposition of a new duty.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated, in reply to a question, that the importer would not be affected, because under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1901, he can add the amount of the duty to the contract price, if he is selling off. A good many of those importers are not bound by contract to the merchants. They take the goods at their own risk, and are selling them after they get here. But in those cases in which importers have got contracts with merchants to take the goods off their hands and to which therefore the Parliamentary Secretary's statement applies, it merely means that the merchant is faced with—I was going to say the risk, but I would rather say the certainty, of disastrous loss on the price which he pays for the importation of those goods. I would, therefore, press the Parliamentary Secretary very strongly on this point. Is he not prepared to withdraw this Order until the position of people who have goods in transit can be safeguarded? They are the people who will suffer most, and they will suffer particularly in the case of importations from Japan, because there has been no possibility of getting into this country goods ordered before the Order was published. The Russian Embargo legislation does afford a remedy, in that it gives the importer the right to import the goods if he has ordered them before the embargo—

Mr. PIKE: If he has paid for them.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If he has paid for them before the embargo came into operation, or if he was under contract to buy them before the Act was passed. The importer of these goods is exactly in that position if he is under contract to buy them, but he is faced with enormous losses, which I will state for the benefit of the hon. Member opposite who shakes his head.

Mr. SLATER: In this particular industry the stocks accumulate during the winter. It is a summer trade largely, but they take their supplies through the winter, and the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman is pleading are making huge profits on what they have in stock over here.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is true that, as the hon. Member says, these goods were coming in during the winter, before the new duties, which were imposed in November, came into operation, but now they have to face those duties, and, on the top of them, this colossal increase. That is going to land these perfectly honest traders, who are carrying on a perfectly legitimate trade, with enormous losses, of which I will give some indication in a moment. The Parliamentary Secretary yesterday said quite correctly that he has no power under the Import Duties Act to give exemption in the case of goods at sea. Therefore, it is not to the Treasury, it is not to the Board of Trade, it is not to the Advisory Committee, that these traders can look for salvation from this injustice which would otherwise be done to them. They can only look to this House, and, therefore, I would ask the House at any rate to insist that, in respect of these goods in transit, some alleviation shall be given.
I would like to re-echo what has just been said by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) about the point of view of the consumers. Sir George May, the chairman of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, when he heard this case in September of last year, said that, in granting any increase of the duty—that is to say, the November increase—care must be taken that the public should not pay more for the same class of goods. But Sir George Beharrell, the managing director of Dunlops, in an interview a week or two ago in which
he expressed gratification at the action of the Government issued this warning:
Naturally, prices for the cheapest lines of shoes have become very depressed, and some adjustment in these lines will be necessary, but the duty should not lead to any general increase in prices.
There will be these unfortunate adjustments in the prices of the cheapest line of goods, which are exactly those to which the hon. Member for Gower was referring —lines of goods which in fact have never been supplied by the British industry. The supply of these cheap rubber boots and shoes is a new industry based upon importation from abroad, for which there will be no compensation if it is wiped out.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like him to develop his argument a little further. He has been trying to tell the House that the importer will lose money on the importation of these goods, and then he goes on to tell the House that the consumer will have to pay a higher price. How does he reconcile the two?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not think there will be the slightest difficulty in doing that. The importer will have to pay duties, as I was just going to show, varying from 120 to 300 per cent., so that there is room there for ruin for the importer as well as a serious rise in price to the consumer in this country, and the consumer will, of course, pay on the later consignments. Actually the price of Wellington boots—what we call"gum-boots"—has already gone up, Since the duty was imposed, from 7s. to 8s. a pair. A line that was offered at 7s. has now gone up to 8s. a pair. These consumers, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Gower, are among the poorest people in the land. They are the school children whom I have seen in recent years, even in the far north of Scotland, travelling through mud and snow dry-shod, and arriving at school warm and dry. If they are deprived of the opportunity of getting this cheap waterproof footgear, it will not only deprive them of comfort, but will lower their power of resistance to iliness, will make them uncomfortable at school, and will make our educational system much less efficient. An hon. Member asks, why do they not buy English stuff? It is because the English stuff is so much more expensive than
they are able to afford, and, when these duties are put on, the imported stuff is bound to go up correspondingly in price. The trade in this very cheap rubber footgear will be killed, and none of it will be available for poor people and for the children who so greatly depend upon it.
Some hon. Members have challenged me to give particulars of this increase in the duty, and what it meant, and I am very glad indeed that they have done so, because I am able to give them exactly the information that they require. In some cases, as I have said, the increase in duty is from 120 to 300 per cent. In the case, for example, of Plimsoll shoes —those that I used to call "gym shoes" when I was at school, that is to say, little brown speckled shoes with black rubber soles—in that case the shoes are sold for 7d., while the new duty on an imported pair of shoes, under this new Order, will be l0d. It will actually be 3d. more than the price at which the shoe is now sold. The duties are actually higher in some cases than the price at which British manufacturers are selling the goods in England. There is, further, this very remarkable fact, that the Scottish firm of Stewart, who are the largest manufacturers of these Plimsoll shoes in this country, declined to associate themselves with the other manufacturers in this case when it was before the Advisory Committee last year, apparently because they were convInced that the 20 per cent. duty which was then in force was ample to safeguard the position of their trade.

Mr. HOWARD: Japanese competition.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Not at all. Only eight months ago Japanese competition was the principal argument of the applicants for this increased duty, and in fact it was proved that the increase in the Japanese trade was at the cost, not of the British manufacturer, but of the other importing countries. This duty means ruin for a number of men engaged in this perfectly legitimate trade, which brings such good and wholesome benefits to the health and comforts and efficiency of our children and of great masses of our poorer population. I have been told of one particular contract—I am willing to give the name to the Parliamentary Secretary if he wishes it—under which a man has bought 50,000 pairs of
children's Wellington boots, and on that contract alone he stands to lose £3,000. Honest traders will be forced into default if this action is suddenly taken without consultation with the trade concerned, without looking into the special circumstances of the trade, irrespective of the fact that the duty imposed last autumn has not yet had time to take effect, although the figures of imports for April show that it is beginning to take effect.
If the House takes this action it will do grave injustice to these honest traders, and will strike a blow at the supply of boots to the consumers to whom I have referred. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider these facts. If these arguments are right it will be no good passing the Order merrily to-day. It will come home to us all. It will come home to the consumers. It will lead to default, and in some cases, I am solemnly informed, to the ruin of certain importers and merchants. It will come home to us all when people who have had the benefit of this footwear challenge us upon what we have done. I therefore ask the Government to withdraw the Order and to give an opportunity for further consideration of it. The Order is based on a misapprehension of the facts of the trade, and I am sure the House would do well if it gave time for further consideration of the special difficulties of the trade.

9.68 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The Government's policy in respect of tariffs has been very frequently explained. It is a matter of expediency, a question whether a particular proposal will be of national advantage on the whole. In order to help them to come to conclusions the Government set up the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That committee sits in an atmosphere free from political prejudice. The policy is straightforward, plain and logical, and is understood by the country, and it is a policy which I persoNaily support. Therefore, I approach this question of the Orders prejudiced in favour of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. But there is one particular Order, No. 8, referring to fabric gloves, to which I must refer, in view of the evidence and the facts which are made plain by the Advisory Committee. It seems to me that the recommenda-
tion is so contradictory that the House will be well advised to reject that portion of Order No. 8 which deals with fabric gloves.
The special nature of the fabric glove industry requires to be understood. Fabric gloves are essentially a substitute product. They are sold freely, provided they are sold as a substitute for skin gloves. They are only sold freely provided they are cheap in price, attractive in appearance, and provided there is a real margin between the price of the skin glove and that of the fabric glove. If the consumer has to pay for fabric gloves a price that is comparable with the price for a chamois leather glove, he does not buy the fabric glove. An illustration of the truth of that statement is to be found in the report of the Advisory Committee itself. For five years the fabric glove industry of this country was safeguarded with an import duty of 33⅓ per cent., and although that duty was only sufficient to increase the British production of fabric gloves by 100,000 dozen pairs, yet that very same duty was sufficient to destroy the consumption of fabric gloves in this country by over 1,000,000 dozen pairs. So the position was this: The duty had been in existence for the five years, 1925–30. In the course of those years we had the experience of knowing what effect this protection would have, firstly, on the production of fabric gloves in this country, and secondly on the consumption of these goods. The duty only helped the home production by 100,000 dozen pairs, but it destroyed the home consumption by 10 times as much, by over 1,000,000 dozen pairs. A second factor is the comparative size of the industry in this country and in Germany—

Sir B. PETO: Has my hon. Friend by any chance in his possession figures of the importation of foreign fabric gloves during the years of which he has been talking? Is he aware that there were over one-and-a-quarter million dozen gloves imported from Germany on the average in those very years?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I do not follow the figures of the hon. Baronet. I do not think he is referring to the figures that I have quoted. I am referring to what happened when the Safeguarding duties were enforced. I say that the duties had that effect. The figures that
I have quoted do not show that the production of fabric gloves in this country, except during the period of the War, ever exceeded about 250,000 dozen pairs. If I am wrong in my statement the hon. Member can correct me. The total production of fabric gloves in this country has never exceeded 250,000 dozen pairs.

Sir B. PETO: My hon. Friend is quite wrong, as he will see if he consults the figures of production. Of course during the period of which he has spoken the duty was anticipated by an enormous import of foreign goods, which vitiated the duty for at least two years. Then the duty was taken off again. In spite of that, in the middle of that period of five years the production of fabric gloves in this country exceeded 350,000 dozen pairs.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: There is a sheer conflict of evidence between us. I will give the figures of production for each successive year. In 1913 the production of English-made fabric gloves was 254,000 dozen; in 1926 it was 146,000 dozen; in 1927, 174,000 dozen; in 1928, 242,000 dozen; and in 1930. 167,000 dozen. Those figures, which were given in evidence by the Glovemakers' Federation, are figures which I am entitled to quote. If there is some mistake in the numbers, I shall be only too glad to look into the matter further, but I think my hon. Friend opposite is quoting the total figures for gloves, whereas I am quoting the figures for fabric gloves. But whether in fact the figure which I have given, which is 250,000 dozen, is an under-estimate, and the figure should be 350,000 dozen, as the hon. Member states, does not materially alter the argument. The facts are that the consumption of fabric gloves in this country is over 2,000,000 dozen in the year, and that the British production is comparatively trivial. Moreover, it should be realised that Germany, which exports most of these fabric gloves to this country, is in fact producing over four times the total quantity of fabric gloves that are sent to the British market.
I was referring, when I was interrupted, to the comparative size of the fabric glove industry in Britain and in Germany. The German fabric glove industry is between 30 and 40 times the size of the British fabric glove industry. There are three distinct stages in the manufacture of fabric gloves. There is, first, the spinning of the fine yarn, then there, is the weaving
of the special glove fabric, and fiNaily there is the cutting-out and the stitching-up of the glove. In respect of the spinning, that is a speciality of Lancashire; in respect of the weaving, that is a speciality of Germany; and in respect of the cutting-out and the stitching-up, that can be performed anywhere, but by reason of the fact that the Majority of the fabric is made in Germany, Germany naturally has a very large fabric glove manufacturing industry.
This Order does nothing at all to help the first section, the spinning section. In fact, as I shall show, it does a great deal to harm it. It does nothing at all to help the second section, the weaving of the special fabric from which the gloves are made, but it does give some assistance to the making-up and stitching the fabric together in the form of gloves, though that assistance is very limited. How limited it is, I can show from the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. In Command Paper 4156 the Committee says:
The experience of the five year period of the safeguarding duties and our own inquiries have satisfied us that—as the association of manufacturers themselves aver— little progress towards supplying the needs of the home market could be expected without a very heavy duty. This would be likely to lead to a considerable increase in price and a serious contraction of consumption.
Therefore, it is apparent that whatever good this Order will do, it is admittedly only of a very limited character, but if the good which it can do is limited, the harm is under no such restriction. Something like 90 per cent, of the cotton yarn used in the manufacture of fabric gloves comes from Lancashire. The export of Lancashire fine yarn to Germany is something like 40 per cent, of the total export. Last year, a year of extreme depression, the value of that export trade was over £6,000,000, and only one-quarter of the purchases of Germany for fabric gloves come back to this country in the form of made-up gloves. That is to say, they take from Lancashire four times the total consumption of this country of fabric gloves—four times the amount of raw material. This duty will seriously jeopardise an extremely important industry, the value of which runs into millions of pounds, and it will do that in order to afford an admittedly limited benefit to an industry which is comparatively small in value.

Mr. HOWARD: Why?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I cannot keep repeating the same argument, but I have said already that the maximum production of gloves in this country is 250,000 dozen, I have pointed out that the total consumption of fabric gloves is over 2,000,000 dozen, and I have further said that, in respect of that 2,000,000 dozen, 90 per cent, of the yarn comes from Lancashire, and that only represents a quarter of the total take-off of Lancashire.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member aware that not 50 per cent, of the cotton used in these fabric gloves is manufactured in Lancashire?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I am aware of precisely the opposite. I know that between 90 and 95 per cent, of the cotton yarn which is used in these fabric gloves is in fact obtained from Lancashire.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Member accept the opinion of one of the directors of the Fine Spinners Association?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I accept the evidence of my own industry, to the effect that we in Lancashire are in daily contact with people in Chemnitz. We are on the telephone to them all the time, and we hold stocks of the yarn in Chemnitz, and the business which is done in supplying the fine yarn to Saxony is absolutely a Lancashire business, which is in danger of being extinguished, or at all events jeopardised, by any action which will prevent fabric gloves being sold at a reasonable price, because unless they are sold at a reasonable price, they will not be sold at all. A comparison of the good which will be done and the harm which may be inflicted means merely that you are going to put into employment one person in the South of England in order to take out of employment perhaps 10 people in the North of England, if you weigh up the balance of advantages and disadvantages, you will find the advantages small and the disadvantages great.

Mr. HOWARD: No.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Do not forget that there is nothing in this proposal which will in any way stimulate or help the manufacture of glove fabric in this country. If we were prepared to do something to help to manufacture the fabric
in this country, something could be said for it. I should be greatly in favour of any steps which would enable the total manufacturing process to proceed from the yarn to the finished article in this country, but no such proposal is made. The glove manufacturers themselves admit that it is necessary for them to buy their fabric from Germany, because there is not available in this country the English woven fabric of the class and quality that are necessary for these fabric gloves.
There is one final illogicality in this report. Command Paper No. 4304 says:
We have now considered further representations from the fabric glove makers in the light of the experience of the last six months. The market is in a depressed condition, and we are informed that the industry is experiencing a great lack of orders.
It is because of this great lack of orders in this comparatively small industry that the Advisory Committee have reversed their previous decision and decided to increase the duty on fabric gloves. They have done that without calling for any further evidence. They have not asked whether they have any great depression in the Lancashire cotton trade. They have taken the mere fact that there is a depressed condition and a lack of orders, and they admit in the same report that they do not think that, even if they did give this increased duty, there would be a possibility of large-scale development in the direction of supplying the needs of the market. The argument is that, because there is depression in this small industry of making up imported fabric into fabric gloves, you should institute a new tariff which may inflict great harm on the Lancashire spinning trade. The weight of evidence would go to show that this House, which should take an impartial view in these matters, should reject this proposal. It is against the balance of national interest, it is inflicting a Wow on a hardly pressed industry, and the Order should not be agreed to.

10.18 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: The hon. Member has put before the House the views and the arguments of the Lancashire fine cotton spinners with regard to their yarn industry. I am sorry that on the three main contentions that he has put before the House I shall have to show that his
position is not so sound. He commenced by telling us that the yarn export industry of Lancashire for the production of glove fabrics in Saxony would be, if not extinguished, jeopardised if we had an increase in the duty on imported foreign fabric gloves. He also made the, to me, extraordinary statement that over 90 per cent, of the whole of the yarn used in the production of this glove fabric from Saxony came now from Lancashire. The information that I have received is that for many years Lancashire has been spinning a less and less percentage of the fine cotton used in Saxony for the manufacture of glove fabric, and that is because the Saxon manufacturers have found that they can buy their yarn very advantageously from the production of their own and other countries. Lancashire cotton spinners appear to me in this controversy to have lost sight of the nationalistic growth of manufacture in Germany and to imagine that, by doing nothing and trying to propitiate them in the matter of our own tariffs, put on in the interests of our own industry and our own unemployed, we can put back that tendency for the production of everything that they require themselves in their own country which will find employment, for their own people. In my view, the true interest of the Lancashire cotton spinners would be to foster the manufacture of fabric gloves, because, obviously, they cannot prevent the progress of the foreign yarn industry by trying to pursue a policy designed to destroy the manufacture of fabric gloves and glove fabric in this country.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: My hon. Friend makes the proposal that it is desirable that we should stimulate the production of the fabric itself in this country. I think that that contention is a very reasonable one, and one which we all ought to put forward. Will he tell me the name of a single glove maker who buys English cloth fabric?

Sir B. PETO: I shall be delighted to deal with that point. I fully intended to do so, and I will give My hon. Friend the name, not only of one, but of several. The next point with which I want to deal is that the hon. Member says that it is necessary for British manufacturers of fabric gloves to buy in Germany, because it is not possible to buy a fabric of suit-
able quality in. this country. That is the point upon which the hon. Member has just questioned me. The purchase of Saxony cloth fabric arose in this country for the British fabric glove makers from the fact that lower wages in Saxony enable their manufacturers to produce cheaper than can be done here, and that is the reason why we put on a tariff the other day. But there is, as a matter of fact, a very large amount of machinery lying idle in this country which used to make cotton glove fabric, and which could be brought into use again at once if there was any demand for it in this country. That is, if the fabric glove industry was encouraged. There is more efficient machinery in this country than is required for the total consumption of fabric gloves in this country.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: It is out-of-date.

Sir B. PETO: I would point out that it is up to date. Let me tell hon. Members this fact. There may not be sufficient machines at this time for the manufacture of Simplex fabric itself, but Since the imposition of the Abnormal Duties Act several manufacturers in this country have installed further machinery, and one firm actually bought four Simplex machines, two of which have not been erected because of the reduction of the duty The present quality of cloth fabric produced in this country is fully equal to the German. I will read a letter from the National Association of Fabric Glove Manufacturers in Great Britain which reached me by express this evening Since the Debate commenced. I will read the operative paragraphs of the letter, with apologies to the House for reading so much, for, although it is not really very long, it is absolutely upon the point upon which we have differences. The letter says:
I understand that the Order in connection with fabric glove importations is coming up for consideration to-night. I also understand that the Lancashire cotton people are opposing it on the grounds that it is not possible to make and finish the material used in the manufacture of fabric gloves in this country.
On behalf of the Fabric Glove Manufacturers' Association I am writing you to give you the following information:
I would like to say that, as a firm"—
William Pinkham and Company, Limited, of Witham, is the firm—
we only buy silk and cotton fabric which is made in this country. There are quite a number of reputable material makers in the Nottingham district, such as C. and F. Sudbury, of Nottingham; S. Fletcher and Sons, of Ilkeston; T. Haimes and Company, Melbourne, Derbyshire; Hunt and Company, of Ilkeston, and many others. The Secretary of the Material Makers' Association is Mr. Harold E. Beardsley, Primrose Hill, Ilkeston, telephone, Ilkeston 94.
I have also received a telegram from the same gentleman, representing that association:
glove fabric can certainly be made in this country"—
The letter proceeds:
Messrs. Courtaulds also have machines for manufacturing simplex in both cotton and silk, and we have had some of this finished which will stand the most critical examination from the finest experts, and is equal in every respect to the highest grade of German imported simplex glove fabric
The finishers who finish a large proportion of glove fabric in this country are Messrs. G. and W. N. Hicking, of Nottingham, the head of which firm is Sir William Hicking. They have a very up-to-date plant.
The one thing lacking with both material makers and finishers, as well as fabric glove manufacturers is a reasonable certainty of a continuity of work, which would enable them to turn out the highest grade articles.
Messrs. C. and F. Sudbury, in addition to manufacturing glove fabric, are one of the largest fabric glove manufacturing firms in this country and as a consequence of the reduction of duty to 20 per cent., they were compelled to dismiss nearly the whole of the glove makers residing in your constituency as well as a large proportion of the workers making the material.
This letter is signed by Mr. William Pinkham, the chairman of the National Association of Fabric Glove Manufacturers. I have also been furnished with samples of glove fabric to which I would call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Here is an English simplex glove, with the German glove. They could not get a sample of the fabric from Germany, and they have produced a fabric quite recently to match the German glove, and the experts say that it is better than the German article. Here is an English simplex and a German simplex side by side. I will hand them down. The English simplex cloth is superior to the German. [An HON. MEMBER: "Circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT!"] No. I am going to give the House one or two more
more samples. Here is an English duplex and a German duplex and the English duplex is superior.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I have a sample here.

Sir B. PETO: I have given the hon. Member what he asked me to give him. I have given him the name of one firm who manufacture glove fabric in this country. He can circulate his sample. It will not warrant him in making another speech. The hon. Member said that the imposition of this increased duty will employ one person in the south of England and put out of work 10 people in the north. I have some figures, which I venture to think are quite reliable, as to the amount of employment in the different processes of manufacture from the yarn to the making of the glove. I want particularly to call the attention of the House to the fact that if, as alleged, it is impossible for our manufacturers to make any large proportion of the fabric gloves consumed in this country, how was it that we were manufacturing close upon 2,000,000 dozen pairs of gloves 13years ago, that is, in 1920. It was because during the War we had to make the whole of the gloves we required ourselves. I have never been able to understand why it is necessary when large numbers of English women and girls want to wear fabric gloves that their wants must be supplied from Germany and that English women and girls should be unemployed. The hon. Member gave us some figures showing that the imposition of the 33⅓ Safeguarding Duty had reduced the total consumption of gloves in this country. I cannot see how that can be the case. He said that our consumption had been reduced by 1,000,000 dozen pairs. In the years between 1925 and 1931 we imported over 1,250,000 dozen pairs from Germany alone, and, therefore, if you take his figure of 250,000 dozen pairs, which I believe is wrong, the average consumption of this country would amount to 1,500,000 dozen pairs. That does not show any large reduction in consumption, because we have never used more than 2,000,000 dozen pairs—the figure is slightly less than that.
What is the real measure of employment and unemployment involved? The million and a quarter dozen pairs which we imported from Germany, if they had
been made here, would have found employment for between 6,000 and 7,000 hands, but in spinning the yarn for the total glove fabric required for these gloves only 400 operatives would be required. To spin the yarn required for the whole of the Saxony production would only require about 1,800 hands. We should therefore be giving employment in this country to many more hands than would be employed to manufacture the yarn required for the entire Saxony production. Let me give the relative number of people who are employed per thousand dozen pairs of gloves—31 are required to spin the yarn, 60 to manufacture the fabric, and 32 to dye and finish the fabric. You employ 92 in manufacturing and dyeing the fabric as against 31 employed in spinning the yarn. If you carry the process further and make the gloves you employ 500 hands to produce the same number of gloves. The attitude of Lancashire spinners on this matter lose3 sight altogether of what will happen to Lancashire in the event of Germany supplying the whole of the yarn. The Lancashire policy of opposing the protection of an old English industry will result in her finding that she has no market for her yarns, but if she backs home industries she has some security for a market. Where the gloves are made there the fabrics will be made, and where the fabrics are made there the yarn will be spun. That is the ordered system of national production.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that it is impossible to give any accurate figures as to the exact number of people employed in this industry at any one time or another. The figures given by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) differ from mine, and it shows the difficulty in regard to this matter. I beg of the hon. Gentleman to consider this aspect. We are playing about with these duties. Some we are pitting up, some when we make agreements with foreign countries, we are reducing. Surely it is vital to know exactly what we are doing? The state of employment in this country is the most urgent question before the House and if we alter a duty, whether to put it up or down, it is vital that the Board of Trade should be able to tell us exactly what the result will be on employment or what was the result of previous action. It is only in the light of experience that we can be guided along the
path of wisdom in what we do in the future.
When I asked a question last Thursday, with regard to the duties in the White Paper dealing with the German Agreement, the Minister of Labour said there were no figures except with regard to the coal industry and to one of the other industries affected, namely, the manufacture of musical instruments. No figures were obtainable in regard to the manufacture of toys, jewellery and the like, which could give us any guide as to what the result of that agreement would he. This controversy about fabric gloves has now raged for 18 years. The duty on fabric gloves has been put up and reduced and taken off altogether. Even recently it was 33⅓ per cent. Then it was nothing; then it was 20 per cent.; then it was 50 per cent.; then again it stood at 20 per cent, and now it is being raised to 30 per cent. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary has to tell us that neither he nor any human being can give us any reliable statistics as to the effect on employment of these various changes. I beg those responsible to see to it that when we are dealing with these duties we should know the statistics of employment in these various industries.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The House very obviously agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) when he said that it was necessary that we should know what we were doing. The controversy which is taking place between him and certain Lancashire Members— both sides being supporters of tariffs— is very puzzling to those of us who are outside the industries concerned and do not understand the technique of trade. At one stage it was difficult to know whether this was a Debate or an auction. I had that impression when the representative of the Board of Trade opened this Debate. He did so with great skill, having regard to the fact that he had to deal with four Orders involving nine or 10 different classes of articles. As he stepped gingerly among these articles, I admired his skill in avoiding giving the necessary information. We have always been told that increases of tariffs would increase employment, but one thing which the hon. Gentleman did not do, in dealing with these Orders, was to give any indication of the extent to which he
thought they would improve employment in the industries concerned. Indeed, in one or two industries he did not seem to know how many people were employed. He stepped away by saying that there were no figures to be got for those particular industries.
In reference to peat moss, he could not even give us the slightest idea of the number of people employed in that indistry. Peat moss and peat moss litter are used not only in horticulture and agriculture, but in poultry breeding, and I was thinking when the hon. Gentleman was speaking that it would be interesting to know whether the Advisory Committee had been interviewed by the various trades connected with the use of that material. It really is time to come down to brass tacks about this matter, so that we may know exactly how many workpeople are to be affected by these new Orders. We know ourselves what will happen to the great mass of people, the people whom we represent, who are outside these small trades. I have heard Conservative Members from the north of England say that this was a south of England Government which did not care twopence for the great industries of the north. That has been illustrated to-night by the hon. Member for Barnstaple in his argument with the Lancashire Members. The whole of Lancashire seems to be up in arms about fabric gloves, while a few people in the south of England seem to be satisfied.
The real truth is that in this question, and in the whole policy of this Government, this House represents the South of England, and is ignorant of the remote areas in the North. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that there is an average of £4 8s. per ton duty on potatoes, and that at the end of June this has fallen to £l per ton. Now that is being increased to £2 in June and July and to £l in August. That means another £l a ton added to potatoes and to the cost of living of the people in the great industrial areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It would be interesting, then, to know who pays for it.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member aware that this Order is particularly to help the farmers of the north, and not particularly to help the farmers of the south?

Mr. LAWSON: All I know is that the farmers of the south are going to get the benefit. At any rate, the masses of workers will have to pay the extra £l a ton, as they are paying the increased price during this time of the year. An important point was put by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), and it ought to have the serious attention of the House. That is the increase on rubber shoes to the extent of 2s. and 4s. per pair. This will affect the working classes, who have got into the habit of using these rubber shoes in the winter. They have to be fairly comfortably off before they can buy these shoes, and the increase in the duty will mean prohibiting the working classes from getting them.
As the hon. Member wants some time in which to reply I will not say more than that we shall go into the Lobby against these Orders. One satisfaction we have had to-night, and that we shall have in the future, is the entertainment of seeing hon. Gentlemen who believe in tariffs revolting when they are applied to their own particular industries, and in the position taken up by the Minister of Agriculture this week when he said that tariffs were finished. He demolished them in his debating speech, and said they were an ancient weapon. The most devastating reply that has been given in this House was given by a representative from the front bench opposite, but even that is not anything like so devastating as the attitude of the gentlemen who favour tariffs but object to them when applied to their own industries.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I must apologise for keeping the House for a few moments on the subject of fabric gloves, on which we have had two long speeches, but I represent a Lancashire constituency, Bolton, which is the main centre for the spinning of fine yarn, and spinners there are, in their opinion, vitally affected by any increase in the duty on fabric gloves which will affect the yarn exports to Germany. A great many figures have been bandied about, and, as is always the case in these Debates, there is a conflict of evidence on points which one would have thought there ought to be no dispute about. The figures of imports of fabric gloves are undoubted, be-
cause we get them from the official Board of Trade returns, but there is always dispute about the figures of the home production of British glove manufacturers. I have had a good deal of experience of safeguarding inquiries, and there is always great difficulty in obtaining these figures of home production. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said the production of fabric gloves by home manufacturers in 1920 was nearly 2,000,000 dozens. In 1913 it was only 254,000 dozens, and in 1930, after five years of Protection, of a 33⅓ per cent. duty imposed under the Safeguarding Act, the production of fabric gloves was 167,000 dozen pairs. That was after five years. There could be no excuse in that case that imports had been rushed in in anticipation of the duty going on.

Sir B. PETO: The explanation was that the trade had very good reason to think that, as had happened before, the duty would be allowed to lapse, and the manufacturers of this country got no orders at all because merchants were waiting to order cheap German gloves as soon as they could come in.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: That condition may have prevailed at the very end. They may have had some doubts because a Labour Government had come in, and Philip Snowden, as he then was, may have given some intimation of what he was going to do. But look at the figures of the production of fabric gloves.

Mr. REMER: Lord Snowden, or Mr. Philip Snowden, as he then was, gave notice in the Budget Speech in April, 1930, that he was going to allow the duties to lapse as soon as they expired.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: That is the precise point with which I was dealing. One cannot say that that was merely due to an intimation that the duty would come off. Look at the figures for the whole five years during which the Safeguarding Duty was in operation. The figures of production in 1926 were 145,000 dozen; in 1927, 174,000 dozen in 1928, 242,000 dozen; in 1929, 232,000 dozen; and in 1930, 167,000 dozen. The hon. Member for Barnstaple could not make out upon what the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) founded his statement that there was a reduction of 1,000,000 dozen pairs in the consumption
of this country. There is not the slightest difficulty in arriving at the facts. In 1925, before there was any duty imposed, there were 2,151,000 dozen pairs imported.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I ask what is the source of that information?

Mr. ENTWISTLE: If the hon. Member can give me the correct figure, what is it?

Mr. WILLIAMS: According to a document on which the hon. Member's name appears, he will see on page 8 that the total in 1925 was 1,223,000 dozen pairs.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I wish the hon. Member, who is so familiar with Government publications, would give us the official statistics. I would much rather have the Board of Trade figures. I have been provided with this figure on good authority by the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners. That is the figure of imports. It may be that I should have got it from the Board of Trade figures, but if the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) queries it, I wish he would give me the figure from the Board of Trade annual returns. Has he got them?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes. This is taken from them. It is an official document.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: We have this conflict of evidence about the figures. I did not know that this particular figure was being challenged. There has been a considerable reduction in the imports, but the increase under the duty is in doubt. I cannot give the precise figure of the Board of Trade as between 1925 and 1926, but if there has been a reduction in imports, and a very substantial one, as I am quite sure the figures will show, and there has been no appreciable increase in home production, then obviously there must have been a reduction in consumption in this country. The hon. Member for Barnstaple asked why not have this duty which would allow the production of 1920 once more to be achieved, giving work to all these workpeople, 5,000 or 6,000 I think he represented as the possible increase of employment under the duty?

Sir B. PET0: If the hon. Member will excuse me, I made no suggestion that this duty would provide that result. I only gave the figure for the information of the
House as to what number of people would be employed if we produced the number of gloves which we did produce in this country in 1920.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: Really, the hon. Member for South Croydon managed to get a score, but I must refer him to a document which is headed "National Association of Fabric Glove Manufacturers of Great Britain." In their memorandum the quantity of dozen pairs imported in 1925 is 2,150,000 and I understand that is the source of the information of the Master Cotton Spinners' Federation. If the figures are wrong, I can only say that they have been supplied by the hon. Gentleman's Friends. I am sorry that he tried to take advantage of a figure of that kind. When the 33⅓ per cent, duty was asked for by the fabric glove manufacturers, the figure of the large production in 1920 was made a lot of, and it was then said that, assisted by this duty, the English manufacturers would make the fabric tissue. All those samples were produced then, just as readily as they are now. I want to ask the hon. Member, how i8 it that, during those five years, the fabric tissue has not been made in any substantial quantity, and how is it that there has been no substantial increase in the fabric gloves? The explanation that I can give him is simple, and it is that the fabric glove is not like any other article. It is one which sells in substitution, as an imitation wash-leather glove, and unless it is very cheap the public will not buy it. It is one of those cases where the demand will vary in direct proportion to the price.
What we in Lancashire say—we are just as good Protectionists as anyone else— [Interruption.] I have certainly voted for every Protectionist Measure that has been introduced by this Government. We were told the other day that, in entering into treaties with foreign countries, we have to weigh on balance, if we make a concession, whether it is worth while, because we get a greater advantage to our industries in other directions. I ask that we should treat this case on exactly the same basis. Here is the small industry of fabric glove manufacturers who, after five years of the Protection for which they asked, a stiff Protection, 33⅓ per cent., were unable to expand, and could show none of the benefits which they held out to the committee which they per-
suaded to give them that Protection; whereas, on the other hand, we have a very important industry, the cotton industry, one of the basic industries of this country and one that is extremely depressed. There are many causes of that. We know that the Lancashire cotton industry is dependent upon its exports and that it has, for various reasons, suffered very heavily in the markets of the East. As regards the markets with Germany, fortunately the Lancashire cotton trade has been able to maintain its pre-War position. It exported about £50,000,000 worth of yarn in 1913, and it has more or less maintained that position through all its depression.
Hon. Members may ask what effect would this duty upon fabric gloves have upon the Lancashire cotton trade. Why are they so fearful of it? The reason is, first of all, with regard to the actual yarn in the gloves which are imported, that that is a substantial matter for the Lancashire cotton trade. If there has been reduction, as I submit there has, of as much as 1,000,000 dozen pairs of gloves under the Safeguarding Duty, and if we can see that the difference between the imports in 1931 and 1932—one being a year without duty—is from 1,659,000 dozens to 598,000 dozens, I ask whether my hon. Friend will query those figures. Perhaps those are wrong also. So far as my information goes, there is a drop of 1,000,000 there. There is a loss of trade in the yarn of those gloves. I ask the hon. Member to note that that is not all that Lancashire is afraid of. The yarn content of a fabric glove is only 20 per cent, of its value, and therefore if a German manufacturer is able to sell a quantity of gloves in this country, he is able, with the money that he gets for his gloves, to buy five times the amount of yarn that those gloves contain.
The Lancashire cotton trade, as has been already said, supplies 90 per cent, of the total yarn that is purchased in Chemnitz, where these gloves are manufactured. The hon. Member for Barnstaple says he does not believe that figure, and another hon. Member here says that it is not true. All I can say is that the people who ought to know about that matter are the cotton spinners themselves, who have done this trade and have access to all the books; and,
moreover, the Import Duties Advisory Committee accepted that evidence, and it appears in their first report, that the large bulk of the total purchases of Germany is supplied from Lancashire sources. If, as I have said, every glove that is not sold in this country from Chemnitz means five times the amount of the yarn in that glove, Lancashire is faced with a reduction in sterling credits and in the power to purchase that yarn.
It may be said that that applies in a good many cases, but there are very few industries which have applied for a duty where it could be said that the article on which the duty is asked for would affect a British industry supplying the raw material for that article. When the Safeguarding of Industries Act was brought into operation, one of the matters that had to be considered before a duty could be recommended was the adverse effect that the duty might have on an industry which used the article on which the duty was imposed, but surely it is also important to look at the effect on the industry that makes the raw material for the article on which the duty is required. That is a most important consideration. We all want to help such districts as are represented by the hon. Member who made such an admirable and witty speech on behalf of the fabric glove manufacturers, but Lancashire is a depressed area. The present production of Lancashire is not 50 per cent, of its pre-war output, and, if it can be shown from past experience that the duty has not helped the British glove manufacture to any material extent, and that the direct effect of this duty is reducing the number of gloves coming into this country would mean, not only so much less yarn sold by Lancashire as is represented by the gloves which formerly came in, but five times that amount, it is easy to understand the apprehension of the fine spinners in Bolton and other districts of Lancashire.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple made a great show, and produced his samples with glee, to prove that the British manufacturers did make this fabric, that they were fully capable of making it, that there was plenty of idle machinery, that one firm had ordered Simplex machines and was waiting to put them in, and that Courtaulds could make it. If this fabric can be made so readily and is available here, how is it, then, that the only reason
given by the Import Duties Advisory Committee for changing their minds as compared with last August is that they are unable to reduce the duty on foreign fabric coming into this country? It is because the British glove maker has to import his fabric from abroad, and he cannot get a reduced duty on it, that they are recommending an increased duty on the gloves. There is no doubt about it. Let me read the recommendation of the Imports Advisory Committee on which this Order is based:
We have visualised, however, the possibility of giving the industry some further assistance by way of a reduction in the duty on glove fabric, and we anticipated that it would then be possible for the industry to maintain itself to a moderate extent, and one, in our opinion, sufficient to bring it within the requirements of Section 3 of the Act*. We have now considered further representations from the glove makers, in the light of the experience of the last six months.
And here is the point:
It has moreover not been found possible to devise an administratively practicable scheme for reducing the duty on glove fabric. In these circumstances, while we see no reason to change the view that we expressed last summer as to the possibilities of large-scale development, we think it would be reasonable to afford the industry some further assistance.
So the only reason they give for changing their minds between January and the August previously, on an ex parte application of the glove makers, without letting the Federation be heard again, is that they cannot reduce the duty on the fabric.

An HON. MEMBER: Why should they?

Mr. ENTWISTLE: But the reason why they give an increased duty to the British manufacturer is that he has to- buy his fabric from abroad, and as he cannot get a reduced duty on it they are going to give him a further duty on the finished article. But that does not tally at all with what the hon. Member has said, that the British manufacturer can make this glove fabric. If that is so, why give as the excuse for this increased duty that the duty on foreign fabric cannot be reduced?

Sir B. PETO: The hon. Member said that he was a very good protectionist, although a Lancashire Member. Is he not aware, or has he never heard of a
duty being necessary in order to establish an industry in a country, and is it not quite conceivable that the Import Duties Advisory Committee came to the conclusion that if the manufacture of glove fabric in this country was to be firmly established a 20 per cent, duty was a reasonable duty, which is the duty now in force, and therefore it was not a reasonable thing to reduce that, in fact to rob Peter in order to pay Paul? Therefore, they recommended an increase in the glove duty of 20 per cent, rather than a reduction of the other duty.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: The hon. Member has made a long interruption and stated what was in the minds of the Advisory Committee, but it is completely contrary to what they say themselves. He said that the Committee wanted to keep on the 20 per cent, duty on fabric in order to stimulate the production of fabric in this country. Nothing of the sort. What the Committee said in their report was that they wanted to reduce the 20 per cent, to 10 per cent., to help the British glove manufacturer, but that they were not able to do it because it was administratively impracticable. That is the reason why it is not done.

Mr. CAPORN: Is the hon. Member aware that the Advisory Committee decided not to reduce the duty of 20 per cent, on the fabric months before this new Order came out?

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I am reading from the actual recommendation, which is dated 27th January.

Mr. CAPORN: That is the official notification.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: Of course. I am saying what the Advisory Committee themselves give as the reasons for recommending this increase of duty. Here is another point for the hon. Member for Barnstaple. The industry have a 33⅓ per cent, duty under the Safeguarding Act. Before this increased duty was put on they had a 20 per cent. duty. But the whole of the competition of this industry, the whole of the gloves which the British glove manufacturer complains of, are coming to this country from Chemnitz in Germany. There is no other source that is of any importance. Germany is on the Gold Standard, on a pre-War parity basis, and we are off the Gold Standard.
The effect of that depreciation of currency to-day is the exact equivalent of a 40 per cent. tariff.

Mr. REMER: No.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I am prepared to prove that statement. In fact, if it is worked out, it is a 33⅓ per cent, depreciation from our pre-War parity in sterling, but when it comes to the competitive advantage as between the German and the English manufacturer, it will be seen that it is the equivalent of a 40 per cent, tariff. That does not apply to all the cotton considered by the Tariff Advisory Committee, because there is a large number of countries in the sterling area, but with regard to this particular industry, the whole of the production comes from Germany, and therefore there is this 40 per cent, advantage through the depreciation, which, on top of the 20 per cent., is at the moment, for all practical purposes, a 60 per cent, duty against the German manufacturer. Surely that is enough to give them a chance, when, on the other side of the scale, are to be reckoned the interests of a great basic industry of Lancashire, which you ought to consider very carefully before you do anything to damage it.
These are the broad, important, basic facts. If one really thought that this duty would largely increase the production of gloves in this country and give this large employment, and would not do any material damage to the Lancashire cotton trade, I should be supporting it whole-heartedly. In the imposition of tariffs there must constantly be a conflict of interests. We are not conceding anything to the hidebound Free Traders in making that concession. The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain always regarded as most important what were the articles on which you put duties. In this case, you are running the danger of doing injury to a far more important industry than is the industry which is claiming protection, and if, on top of that, it is very doubtful whether you will give any material advantage to the glove manufacturers, based on past experience, and there is this undoubted damage which will result to Lancashire, I ask the House to give the benefit of the doubt to Lancashire.
It is not as if the British glove manufacturer is without any protection. He
has the 20 per cent, duty, without this proposed addition. He has too the protection of the depreciated exchange; and in these circumstances I think no adequate reasons were given by the Import Duties Advisory Committee for this change. They never heard the representations of the other side, and when you look at the reasons that they give for changing their mind in the short period of three months, they are the feeblest reasons that they have ever advocated in recommending any duty. In these circumstances, having regard to the very strong opposition throughout Lancashire to these duties, and in particular the fine cotton spinning industry, which is one of the basic industries which we want to preserve in this country, I say that, good Protectionist as I am— and I claim to be as good a Protectionist as anyone—on balance in this case the dangers far outweigh any possible advantages, and I ask the Government therefore carefully to reconsider this proposal and to see if they cannot revoke the Order until at any rate the matter has had fuller and further consideration.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. HASLAM: I hope I may be allowed to divert the attention of the House from the interesting and exciting controversy on fabric gloves to an entirely rural subject, namely, that of the humble potato. The order comprises a certain increase in the duties on potatoes. The potato is a very common article of consumption. It is very interesting from this point of view, that it is an article which, given average seasons, can be wholly produced in this country. The producers of potatoes have suffered very severely in past years under free importations from the fact that when there is a glut foreign producers have dumped large quantities into the British market, to the very great detriment, and often to the almost ruin, of small producers in this country. Therefore they require this comparatively moderate protection which is here proposed. It is also a point for the House to consider that potato culture requires a considerable amount of labour. There are no Board of Trade or Labour statistics on the point, but every agricultural Member will agree that that is so. Although the Advisory Committee have not given the full duty that was asked for by the industry, they have given what I consider is not an unfair duty.
They have given half of what was asked, and I feel sure that a great number of producers will agree that it is not to their interest to do anything to exploit the consumer. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that duties on new potatoes, which run up to 30th June, are no less than £4 13s. 4d. per ton. Then there is a big fall. Last year the duty fell to £l per ton on the 1st July and now it is proposed that the £l should be increased to £2. But that is a very big drop also. While this duty of £4 13s. 4d. is of benefit to the South, particularly to Cornwall, it is of no benefit at all to the North, because their potatoes do not come on as a rule till July. Last year this big fall in the duty operated to the very great disadvantage of producers in the North, because the continental producers, in view of the larger duty, held back stocks that were ready about the end of June until July and threw them into this country, to the great detriment of our own producers. That danger is not entirely overcome because there is still this very big drop, and there is still the temptation to the foreign producer to hold back his supplies till the end of June until the duty of £4 13s. 4d. becomes only a duty of £2. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to watch this situation. I heartily support the new Order.

11.19 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I feel sure that the House will agree that my exposition of the Order with regard to potatoes was clarity itself compared with the position revealed by some of the contestants over the fabric glove duty. I was asked a question with regard to buttons. I endeavoured to make it clear that there is no change in the ad valorem incidence. The 33⅓ per cent, still applies to all kinds of buttons except those actually sewn on the article when it is imported. I was asked where peat came from. It comes chiefly from Germany and Holland, while we also supply it from Somerset, Yorkshire, and Scotland. The right hon. and gallant Member for Carthness (Sir A. Sinclair) asked in regard to rubber footwear whether at any particular stage in the proceedings there had or had not been an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. He is far too good a constitutionalist and too
well informed to expect me to know anything about what happens in that Committee. It is entirely independent and away from all contact with Government Departments and I am not privy to their proceedings and have no information.
With regard to fabric gloves whatever may be the merits of the dispute we heard argued, I confess that it was rather a new role for me to play to keep the ring during a large number of three-minutes rounds. Whatever the merits of the dispute that we have heard, there is not one hon. Member who believes that an increase of duty of 10 per cent, is going to bring ruin to anyone. If the House is prepared to accept the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it will give some assistance, modest it may be, to the whole industry of this country, and no evidence adequate in character has been produced that it will do any harm to anyone.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I was challenged on a figure I gave to the House, and of which I said that the accuracy could be determined from the Board of Trade official figures. I gave a figure of 2,151,000 dozen pairs of gloves which were imported in 1925, and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), to the amusement of hon. Members, corrected me by saying that I was a million wrong. I have the official figures here, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could inform the House that I was correct in the figure I gave. The figure which the hon. Member for South Croydon looked at was that relating to leather gloves, and not to fabric gloves.

Dr. BURGIN: It is not always that one expresses gratitude for an interruption, but on this occasion I should like to do so, because the hon. and learned Member has called attention to Board of Trade figures. That was the note upon which I desired to close. The one fact which has emerged from the discussion to-night has been the desire of everybody in the House to have accurate statistics with regard to all these trades. The Import Duties Act, 1932, has only had one birthday so far, and there has not been, time to collect a great deal of information, but the discussion to-night shows the wisdom of the insertion of Section 9 of the Act, which gives the Board of Trade power to acquire informa-
tion for the express purpose of compiling the statistics. That power is being exercised, and, as time passes, we shall be in a position to come down to the House with full and accurate information and give the information which the House wants. I trust that with that explanation the House will give me the Orders.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: The hon. Member has not dealt with the Order which exempts ships, boats, and other vessels coming to this country for the purpose of being broken up. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) seems to be under a misapprehension. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can say a word about it.

Dr. BURGIN: I thought that I had dealt with that matter. Certain boats are subject to a 10 per cent, duty, and not to any additional duty, and certain boats

are not. If the House wants a complete analysis of it, it can have it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) does not.

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932. a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."

Motion made, and Question put:

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin]

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 52.

Division No. 176.]
AYES.
[11.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hanley, Dennis A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Harbord, Arthur


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cross, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Apsley, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hornby, Frank


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Horobin, Ian M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Bateman, A. L.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Eastwood, John Francis
Jennings, Roland


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Borodale, Viscount
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kimball, Lawrence


Boulton, W. W.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Law, Sir Alfred


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leckie, J. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Liddall, Walter S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Burghley, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mabane, William


Burnett, John George
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gluckstein, Louis Halls
McCorquodale, M. S.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Macdonald, sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Carver, Major William H.
Graves, Marjorie
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Greene, William P. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Castle Stewart, Earl
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Christie, James Archibald
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Magnay, Thomas


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cook, Thomas A.
Hales, Harold K.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cooper, A. Dun
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Copeland, Ida
Hanbury, Cecil
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Mltchell, Harold P.(Br'ti'd & Chisw'k)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Stevenson, James


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Storey, Samuel


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Robinson, John Roland
Strauss, Edward A.


Morrison, William Shephard
Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Munro, Patrick
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Summersby, Charles H.


Nail, Sir Joseph
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Templeton, William P.


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Thompson, Luke


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Salt, Edward W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


O'Connor, Terence James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Turton, Robert Hugh


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Scone, Lord
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Patrick, Colin M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pearson, William G.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Peat, Charles U.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Petherick, M.
Slater, John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Pike, Cecil F.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Soper, Richard
Wise, Alfred R.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Womersley, Walter James


Ramebotham, Herwald
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rankin, Robert
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



Bold, William Allan (Derby)
Spens, William Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, James A. de


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntel, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Reee (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Groves, Thomas E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin,."]

Motion made, and Question put:

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 8) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-eighth day or April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."—[Dr.Burgin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 60.

Division No. 177.]
AYES.
[11.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bateman, A. L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burghley, Lord


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Borodale, Viscount
Burnett, John George


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Campbell, vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Carver, Major William H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Cattle Stewart, Earl
Howard, Tom Forrest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Christie, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Colman, N. C. D.
Jennings, Roland
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cook, Thomat A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cooper, A. Dull
Kimball, Lawrence
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salt, Edward W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Liddall, Waiter S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Scone, Lord


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Despencer-Roberteon, Major J. A. F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Slater, John


Duckworth, George A. V.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Duggan, Hubert John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Eastwood, John Francis
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Macmilian, Maurice Harold
Soper, Richard


Elmley, Viscount
Magnay, Thomas
Sotheron- Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spens, William Patrick


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Martin, Thomas B.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stevenson, James


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, Samuel


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mitchell, Harold p.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Strauss, Edward A.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, William Shephard
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ganzoni, Sir John
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Summersby, Charles H.


Gault, Lieut.-col. A. Hamilton
Munro, Patrick
Templeton, William P.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Thompson, Luke


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles



Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Turton, Robert Hugh


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
O'Connor, Terence James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Graves, Marjorie
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Greene, William P. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pearson, William G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peat, Charles U.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Guy, J. C. Morrison
perkins. Waiter R. D.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Williams, Herbert. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Pike, Cecil P.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harbord, Arthur
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Womersley, Walter James


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald



Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rankin, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hornby, Frank
Reld, William Allan (Derby)
Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramer, John R.



NOES.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Nail, Sir Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Horobin, Ian M.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Daggar, George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shuts, Colonel J. J.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mabane, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKeag, William



Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.




Graham.


Resolution agreed to.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

EDUCATION (NECESSITY OF SCHOOLS) BILL [LORDS].

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1933.

Resolved,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make an Order in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 14th day of February last."—[Mr. Duff Cooper."]

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported.

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law of Scotland relating to the Court of Session and procedure therein to the appointment of officers in the said Court and the High Court of Justiciary to criminal jury trials and to the sheriffs and procedure in the Sheriff Court and with regard to law agent's fees, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums which may become payable in respect of the remuneration of—

(a) the principal clerk of Justiciary, and any depute, assistant, or other clerk in the Justiciary Office;
(b) a principal clerk of session, and other clerks and officers of the Court of Session (including any clerk to a judge);
338
(c) macers in the High Court of Justiciary and in the Court of Session;
(d) the accountant of Court, the auditor of the Court of Session, and the principal extractor of the acts and decrees of the Court of Session;
(e)any person appointed to act as interim sheriff during a vacancy in the office of sheriff of any sheriffdom, or during the absence on sick leave of a sheriff who is restricted from engaging in private practice."

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Swansea Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 25th day of April and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Ilfracombe Gas Company, which was presented on the 11th day of April and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin."]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.